CVE-2025-62375VulnerabilityPublished 15 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-62375: in-toto go-witness · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects in-toto go-witnessSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 0.9.1 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.1

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 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

Upgrade github.com/in-toto/go-witness to 0.9.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/in-toto/go-witness`pkg:golang/github.com/in-toto/go-witness`Other threats	Affected <0.9.1	Fixed in 0.9.1

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 immediately upgrade go-witness to version 0.9.1 or later and witness to version 0.10.1 or later to ensure proper validation of AWS EC2 instance identity documents. Until upgrades are applied, disable the AWS attestor component to prevent acceptance of forged attestations. Implement manual verification of instance identity documents and signatures using cryptographic tools such as OpenSSL, strictly following AWS's official verification guidelines to detect forged or tampered documents. Restrict access to the Instance Metadata Service (IMDS) by enforcing IMDSv2 usage and applying network segmentation or firewall rules to limit metadata access to authorized processes only, reducing the risk of metadata impersonation attacks. Monitor logs and attestation results for anomalies indicating possible forged identity documents or attestation failures. Incorporate additional attestation layers or alternative identity verification mechanisms to reduce reliance on a single attestor. Finally, maintain awareness of updates to AWS public certificates and ensure attestation tools are kept current with AWS certificate rotations and regional variations.

Description

go-witness and witness are Go modules for generating attestations. In go-witness versions 0.8.6 and earlier and witness versions 0.9.2 and earlier the AWS attestor improperly verifies AWS EC2 instance identity documents. Verification can incorrectly succeed when a signature is not present or is empty, and when RSA signature verification fails. The attestor also embeds a single legacy global AWS public certificate and does not account for newer region specific certificates issued in 2024, making detection of forged documents difficult without additional trusted region data. An attacker able to supply or intercept instance identity document data (such as through Instance Metadata Service impersonation) can cause a forged identity document to be accepted, leading to incorrect trust decisions based on the attestation. This is fixed in go-witness 0.9.1 and witness 0.10.1. As a workaround, manually verify the included identity document, signature, and public key with standard tools (for example openssl) following AWS’s verification guidance, or disable use of the AWS attestor until upgraded.

Impact

For European organizations leveraging in-toto go-witness or witness modules in their software supply chain security, especially those running workloads on AWS EC2 instances, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of attestation processes. Forged or improperly validated instance identity documents can lead to false trust in compromised or unauthorized instances, potentially allowing attackers to bypass security controls, escalate privileges, or inject malicious code into trusted pipelines. This undermines the security of continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) workflows and cloud infrastructure security posture. Organizations relying on these modules for compliance or regulatory attestations may face increased risk of supply chain attacks or audit failures. The impact is heightened in environments where instance metadata is accessible or where attackers can perform metadata service impersonation attacks. Given the widespread use of AWS in Europe and the increasing adoption of supply chain security tooling, the vulnerability could affect critical infrastructure, financial services, and technology sectors. However, the lack of known exploits and the medium CVSS score suggest the threat is moderate but warrants prompt remediation to maintain trust in attestation mechanisms.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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 15 Oct 2025, 19:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats