VulnerabilityPublished 14 Nov 2025Updated 16 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-63291: Incorrect Use of Privileged APIs

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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: 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 on 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 14 Nov 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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should involve restricting API access to trusted users and enforcing strict role-based access controls within Alteryx Server to limit the scope of accessible MongoDB object IDs.
Monitor API request logs for unusual access patterns or attempts to query arbitrary object IDs.
Rotate all administrative and private API keys that may have been exposed or are at risk.
Implement network-level segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access to the Alteryx Server API endpoints only to authorized systems and users.
Engage with Alteryx support or vendor channels to obtain official patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as they become available.
Conduct a thorough audit of user permissions and API key usage to identify and remediate any unauthorized access.
Educate administrators and developers on secure API usage and the importance of validating authorization checks on all data requests.
Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious API calls referencing unauthorized MongoDB object IDs. These measures collectively reduce the risk of exploitation until a vendor patch is released.

Description

When processing API requests, the Alteryx server 2022.1.1.42654 and 2024.1 used MongoDB object IDs to uniquely identify the data being requested by the caller. The Alteryx server did not check whether the authenticated user had permission to access the specified MongoDB object ID. By specifying particlar MongoDB object IDs, callers could obtain records for other users without proper authorization. Records retrievable using this attack included administrative API keys and private studio api keys.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to data confidentiality and integrity within Alteryx Server deployments. Exposure of administrative and private API keys can lead to unauthorized access to critical analytics workflows, data manipulation, or lateral movement within the environment. Organizations handling sensitive or regulated data (e.g., financial, healthcare, or personal data under GDPR) may face compliance violations and reputational damage if such data is accessed or exfiltrated. The medium severity score reflects that while the vulnerability does not allow full system compromise or denial of service, the unauthorized disclosure of API keys can facilitate privilege escalation or persistent unauthorized access. Given the widespread use of Alteryx in data analytics and business intelligence across Europe, especially in sectors like finance, manufacturing, and public administration, the impact could be material. Additionally, the vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against organizations with valuable data assets or strategic importance.

CWE-648Incorrect Use of Privileged APIs (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Low
The product does not conform to the API requirements for a function call that requires extra privileges. This could allow attackers to gain privileges by causing the function to be called incorrectly.
Implementation
Before calling privileged APIs, always ensure that the assumptions made by the privileged code hold true prior to making the call.
Architecture and Design
Know architecture and implementation weaknesses of the privileged APIs and make sure to account for these weaknesses before calling the privileged APIs to ensure that they can be called safely.
Implementation
If privileged APIs make certain assumptions about data, context or state validity that are passed by the caller, the calling code must ensure that these assumptions have been validated prior to making the call.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Hijacking a privileged process (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Nov 2025, 20:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-648

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats