VulnerabilityPublished 6 Aug 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-6013: HashiCorp Vault · Improper Neutralization of Whitespace

Affects HashiCorp VaultSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 1.20.2 : update HashiCorp Vault when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.20.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Aug 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
HashiCorp Vault	Affected =1.10.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade affected Vault versions to the patched releases: Vault Community Edition 1.20.2 or later, and Vault Enterprise 1.20.2, 1.19.8, 1.18.13, or 1.16.24. In the interim, administrators should audit LDAP user entries for CNs with leading or trailing whitespace and normalize these entries to prevent ambiguity. Review and disable the 'username_as_alias' setting if not strictly required, as this setting is central to the vulnerability. Implement strict input validation and normalization on LDAP attributes used for authentication. Additionally, monitor authentication logs for unusual patterns that may indicate attempts to exploit this vulnerability. Employ network segmentation and restrict access to Vault's LDAP authentication endpoints to trusted sources only. Finally, conduct a thorough review of MFA enforcement policies and test them after applying patches to ensure proper functionality.

Description

Vault and Vault Enterprise’s (“Vault”) ldap auth method may not have correctly enforced MFA if username_as_alias was set to true and a user had multiple CNs that are equal but with leading or trailing spaces. Fixed in Vault Community Edition 1.20.2 and Vault Enterprise 1.20.2, 1.19.8, 1.18.13, and 1.16.24.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers with network access and high privileges to bypass MFA enforcement in Vault's LDAP authentication method if certain conditions are met. This can lead to unauthorized access to Vault secrets, compromising confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data such as credentials, encryption keys, and configuration secrets. Organizations relying on Vault for secret management and enforcing MFA for access control are at risk of unauthorized disclosure or modification of secrets, which can cascade into broader system compromises. The absence of user interaction and the low complexity of the attack increase the risk in environments where the 'username_as_alias' setting is enabled and LDAP CN entries contain whitespace variations. While availability is not directly impacted, the breach of confidentiality and integrity can severely affect organizational security posture, regulatory compliance, and trust in critical infrastructure.

CWE-156Improper Neutralization of Whitespace (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as whitespace when they are sent to a downstream component.
Developers should anticipate that whitespace will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Implementation · Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

discuss.hashicorp.com/t/hcsec-2025-20-vault-ldap-mfa-enforcement-bypass-when-using-username-as-alias/76092 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 04:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-156

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats