VulnerabilityPublished 25 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64061: Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% 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:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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 25 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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately restrict access to the /api/v2/users endpoint to only highly privileged users or administrative roles through proper access control enforcement. 2. Implement role-based access control (RBAC) or attribute-based access control (ABAC) to ensure that low-privileged users cannot access sensitive user data. 3. Monitor API logs for unusual or excessive GET requests to the /api/v2/users endpoint, especially from low-privileged accounts, and investigate anomalies. 4. Enforce strong password hashing algorithms (e.g., bcrypt, Argon2) with adequate work factors to reduce the risk of offline cracking if hashes are exposed. 5. Conduct a thorough audit of user privileges and remove unnecessary access rights to minimize the attack surface. 6. If possible, apply virtual patching via web application firewalls (WAFs) to block unauthorized requests to the vulnerable endpoint until an official patch is released. 7. Educate users about the risk of credential compromise and enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) to mitigate the impact of stolen credentials. 8. Engage with the vendor to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and plan for timely deployment once available.

Description

Primakon Pi Portal 1.0.18 /api/v2/users endpoint is vulnerable to unauthorized data exposure due to deficient access control mechanisms. Any authenticated user, regardless of their privilege level (including standard or low-privileged users), can make a GET request to this endpoint and retrieve a complete, unfiltered list of all registered application users. Crucially, the API response body for this endpoint includes password hashes.

Impact

For European organizations using Primakon Pi Portal 1.0.18, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of user credentials, increasing the risk of account compromise. Attackers with any authenticated access could harvest password hashes and attempt offline cracking, potentially escalating privileges or moving laterally within the network. This could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive systems, data breaches, or disruption of business operations. The exposure of password hashes also undermines user trust and may have regulatory implications under GDPR due to inadequate protection of personal data. While the vulnerability does not directly allow data modification or service disruption, the indirect consequences of credential compromise can be severe, especially for organizations with critical infrastructure or sensitive data. The medium CVSS score indicates moderate risk, but the actual impact depends on the strength of password hashing algorithms used and the organization's overall security posture. European entities with large user bases or high-value targets are particularly at risk.

CWE-497Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly prevent sensitive system-level information from being accessed by unauthorized actors who do not have the same level of access to the underlying system as the product does.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Production applications should never use methods that generate internal details such as stack traces and error messages unless that information is directly committed to a log that is not viewable by the end user.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Web Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Location Discovery (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 2 Dec 2025, 17:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-497

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats