VulnerabilityPublished 7 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-63691: pig · Improper Authorization

Affects pigSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.6 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.6Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% 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:C/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 7 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 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
GitHubpig-mesh/pig`pkg:github/pig-mesh/pig`Other threats	Affected <=3.8.2	Fixed in–

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 audit their pig-mesh deployments to identify affected versions (3.8.2 and below). Until an official patch is released, implement strict network segmentation and access controls to limit access to the token query API endpoint only to trusted administrators. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block unauthorized API requests targeting /api/admin/sys-token/page. Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all administrative accounts to reduce risk from token theft. Monitor logs for unusual token query activity or multiple token retrieval attempts by non-administrative users. Consider temporarily disabling or restricting the Token Management function if feasible. Engage with pig-mesh vendors or community for updates and patches. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on token management and authorization controls. Finally, educate users about the risks of token exposure and the importance of secure session management.

Description

In pig-mesh In Pig version 3.8.2 and below, within the Token Management function under the System Management module, the token query interface (/api/admin/sys-token/page) has an improper permission verification issue, which leads to information leakage. This interface can be called by any user who has completed login authentication, and it returns the plaintext authentication Tokens of all users currently logged in to the system. As a result, ordinary users can obtain the administrator's authentication Token through this interface, thereby forging an administrator account, gaining the system's management permissions, and taking over the system.

Impact

For European organizations using pig-mesh 3.8.2 or earlier, this vulnerability poses a severe risk of unauthorized system takeover. Attackers with any authenticated user account can escalate privileges to administrator level by stealing authentication tokens, leading to full control over system management functions. This can result in data breaches, unauthorized configuration changes, disruption of services, and potential lateral movement within networks. Confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data are at high risk, especially in sectors relying on pig-mesh for critical infrastructure or internal system management. The vulnerability’s network accessibility and lack of user interaction requirement increase the likelihood of exploitation. Given the critical nature of this flaw, organizations could face regulatory penalties under GDPR if personal data is compromised. The absence of known exploits does not diminish the threat, as attackers may develop exploits rapidly once details are publicized.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (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 14 Nov 2025, 16:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats