CVE-2025-64530VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64530: apollographql federation · Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel

Affects apollographql federationSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 2.9.5 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.9.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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 13 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 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 apollographql/federation to 2.9.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubapollographql/federation`pkg:github/apollographql/federation`Other threats	Affected <2.9.5	Fixed in 2.9.5

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 prioritize upgrading Apollo Federation to versions 2.9.5, 2.10.4, 2.11.5, or 2.12.1 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by disallowing user-defined access control directives on interface types/fields. For environments where immediate upgrading is not feasible, manually replicate all access control directives from interface types/fields to each implementing object type/field to ensure enforcement consistency. Do not remove directives from interface types/fields during this process to maintain schema integrity. Additionally, audit GraphQL schemas to identify any use of access control directives on interfaces and verify that access control policies are correctly applied on concrete types. Implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict access to Apollo Router endpoints, minimizing exposure to untrusted networks. Enable detailed logging and monitoring of GraphQL queries to detect anomalous or suspicious access patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. Incorporate regular security reviews of API composition configurations and access control policies as part of the software development lifecycle. Finally, educate development and security teams about the nuances of access control in GraphQL federation architectures to prevent similar misconfigurations.

Description

Apollo Federation is an architecture for declaratively composing APIs into a unified graph. A vulnerability in versions of Apollo Federation's composition logic prior to 2.9.5, 2.10.4, 2.11.5, and 2.12.1 allowed some queries to Apollo Router to improperly bypass access controls on types/fields. Apollo Federation incorrectly allowed user-defined access control directives on interface types/fields, which could be bypassed by instead querying the implementing object types/fields in Apollo Router via inline fragments, for example. A fix to versions 2.9.5, 2.10.4, 2.11.5, and 2.12.1 of composition logic in Federation now disallows interfaces types and fields to contain user-defined access control directives. Some workarounds are available. Users of Apollo Rover with an unpatched composition version or are using the Apollo Studio build pipeline with Federation version 2.8 or below should manually copy the access control requirements on interface types/fields to each implementing object type/field where appropriate. Do not remove those access control requirements from the interface types/fields, as unpatched Apollo Composition will not automatically generate them in the supergraph schema. Customers not using Apollo Router access control features (`@authenticated`, `@requiresScopes`, or `@policy` directives) or not specifying access control requirements on interface types/fields are not affected and do not need to take action.

Impact

For European organizations leveraging Apollo Federation for GraphQL API composition, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk of unauthorized data access. Attackers can bypass access controls and retrieve sensitive information by exploiting the flaw, potentially exposing confidential business data, personal information, or intellectual property. This can lead to regulatory compliance violations under GDPR due to unauthorized data disclosure. The impact is particularly critical for sectors relying heavily on GraphQL APIs for internal or customer-facing services, such as finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and e-commerce. The vulnerability affects confidentiality but not integrity or availability, meaning data can be read without authorization but not altered or deleted. Since exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction, the attack surface is broad, increasing the likelihood of exploitation in environments with exposed Apollo Router endpoints. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests that proactive patching can prevent incidents. However, failure to address this vulnerability could lead to data breaches, reputational damage, and potential financial penalties for affected European entities.

CWE-288Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
Architecture and Design
Funnel all access through a single choke point to simplify how users can access a resource. For every access, perform a check to determine if the user has permissions to access the resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/apollographql/federation/security/advisories/GHSA-mx7m-j9xf-62hw (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Nov 2025, 00:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-288

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats