CVE-2025-60425VulnerabilityPublished 27 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-60425: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 62% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Oct 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 2026-10-25.

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 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

AI-suggested

1. Apply patches or updates from Nagios as soon as they become available that address session token invalidation upon 2FA activation. 2. Until patches are released, enforce manual session invalidation by logging out all users and restarting Nagios Fusion services after enabling 2FA. 3. Implement strict session management policies, including short session lifetimes and monitoring for concurrent sessions from different IP addresses. 4. Use network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access to Nagios Fusion interfaces to trusted administrative networks only. 5. Enable comprehensive logging and alerting on session anomalies and failed authentication attempts. 6. Educate administrators on the risks of session hijacking and encourage use of hardware-based 2FA tokens to reduce token theft risk. 7. Regularly audit user sessions and revoke any suspicious or stale sessions manually. 8. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block suspicious session token usage patterns.

Description

Nagios Fusion v2024R1.2 and v2024R2 does not invalidate already existing session tokens when the two-factor authentication mechanism is enabled, allowing attackers to perform a session hijacking attack.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability can lead to unauthorized access to Nagios Fusion monitoring dashboards and control interfaces, potentially allowing attackers to manipulate monitoring data, disable alerts, or conceal malicious activities. The integrity of IT infrastructure monitoring is critical for timely incident response and operational continuity; thus, exploitation could delay detection of attacks or system failures. Confidentiality impact is moderate, as attackers gain access to monitoring data that may include sensitive infrastructure details. Availability impact is low but could escalate if attackers disrupt monitoring services. Organizations relying on Nagios Fusion for compliance and operational oversight may face regulatory and reputational risks if monitoring is compromised. The vulnerability's ease of exploitation without privileges or user interaction increases the threat level, especially in environments where session tokens might be exposed through other means such as phishing or network interception.

CWE-491Public cloneable() Method Without Final ('Object Hijack') (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
A class has a cloneable() method that is not declared final, which allows an object to be created without calling the constructor. This can cause the object to be in an unexpected state.
Implementation
Make the cloneable() method final.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 16:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-491

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats