VulnerabilityPublished 16 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-61789: Icinga icingadb-web · Observable Response Discrepancy

Affects Icinga icingadb-webSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.1.4 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.1.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 16 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 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

Upgrade icinga/icingadb-web to 1.1.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubicinga/icingadb-web`pkg:github/icinga/icingadb-web`Other threats	Affected <1.1.4	Fixed in 1.1.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should take the following specific mitigation steps: 1) Upgrade Icinga DB Web to versions 1.1.4 or 1.2.3 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. 2) Restrict access to the Icinga DB Web interface strictly to trusted and necessary personnel, enforcing strong authentication and role-based access controls to minimize the number of authorized users. 3) Monitor and audit user activities within Icinga DB Web to detect unusual filter usage or attempts to access protected variables. 4) Implement network segmentation to isolate monitoring infrastructure from general user networks, reducing the risk of unauthorized access. 5) Review and tighten the configuration of custom variables, ensuring sensitive variables are properly protected and not exposed unnecessarily. 6) Educate administrators and users about the risks of information disclosure through side channels and encourage prompt reporting of suspicious behavior. 7) Maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to quickly address any potential compromise stemming from information leakage. These targeted measures go beyond generic patching by focusing on access control, monitoring, and configuration hygiene specific to the vulnerability context.

Description

Icinga DB Web provides a graphical interface for Icinga monitoring. Before 1.1.4 and 1.2.3, an authorized user with access to Icinga DB Web, can use a custom variable in a filter that is either protected by icingadb/protect/variables or hidden by icingadb/denylist/variables, to guess values assigned to it. Versions 1.1.4 and 1.2.3 respond with an error if such a custom variable is used.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-61789 is the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive monitoring configuration data or custom variable values within Icinga DB Web. This information leakage could aid attackers in reconnaissance, enabling them to better understand the monitored environment and potentially plan further attacks. Confidentiality breaches may expose internal network details, system configurations, or operational parameters that are meant to be protected. Although the vulnerability does not allow direct data modification or service disruption, the leaked information could facilitate lateral movement or privilege escalation in complex attack scenarios. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, may face compliance risks if sensitive monitoring data is exposed. Since exploitation requires authorized access to the Icinga DB Web interface, the threat is more significant in environments with weak internal access controls or where user credentials may be compromised. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for prompt remediation.

CWE-204Observable Response Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
ICMP IP Total Length Field Probe (opens in a new tab)
ICMP IP 'ID' Field Error Message Probe (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Oct 2025, 17:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-204

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats