VulnerabilityPublished 17 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66029: OSC ondemand · Insufficiently Protected Credentials

Affects OSC ondemandSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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 17 Dec 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubosc/ondemand`pkg:github/osc/ondemand`Other threats	Affected <=4.0.8	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 HPC centers should immediately review their Open OnDemand configurations, especially if running version 4.0.8 or earlier. Administrators should implement the workaround by editing `ood_portal.yml` to include `custom_location_directives` that unset or modify sensitive headers before they reach origin servers. Changing the `OIDCPassClaimsAs` setting from the default `both` to `none` or `environment` reduces the risk of header leakage. Centers using OIDC providers should follow guidance from GHSA-2cwp-8g29-9q32 to unset `mod_auth_openidc_session` cookies appropriately. Monitoring internal network traffic for unauthorized origin servers on compute nodes can help detect attempts to exploit this vulnerability. Planning and testing the upgrade to Open OnDemand 4.1, once released, is critical for a permanent fix. Additionally, implementing strict access controls and auditing user activities on compute nodes can reduce the risk of malicious origin server deployment.

Description

Open OnDemand provides remote web access to supercomputers. In versions 4.0.8 and prior, the Apache proxy allows sensitive headers to be passed to origin servers. This means malicious users can create an origin server on a compute node that record these headers when unsuspecting users connect to it. Maintainers anticipate a patch in a 4.1 release. Workarounds exist for 4.0.x versions. Using `custom_location_directives` in `ood_portal.yml` in version 4.0.x (not available for versions below 4.0) centers can unset and or edit these headers. Note that `OIDCPassClaimsAs both` is the default and centers can set `OIDCPassClaimsAs ` to `none` or `environment` to stop passing these headers to the client. Centers that have an OIDC provider with the `OIDCPassClaimsAs` with `none` or `environment` settings can adjust the settings using guidance provided in GHSA-2cwp-8g29-9q32 to unset the mod_auth_openidc_session cookies.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those operating supercomputing centers and HPC clusters, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk to the confidentiality of user credentials and session tokens. Exposure of these credentials could allow attackers to impersonate legitimate users, gain unauthorized access to sensitive computational resources, and potentially exfiltrate or manipulate sensitive scientific or industrial data. Given the critical role of HPC in research, energy, finance, and defense sectors across Europe, such breaches could disrupt operations and compromise intellectual property. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the loss of confidentiality alone can have severe operational and reputational consequences. The requirement for some privileges and user interaction limits exploitation to insiders or targeted attacks, but the impact remains high due to the sensitivity of the affected environments.

CWE-522Insufficiently Protected Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
Architecture and Design
Use an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
Architecture and Design
Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
Implementation
Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Key Theft (opens in a new tab)
Password Recovery Exploitation (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Modify Existing Service (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-523Unprotected Transport of Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
Login pages do not use adequate measures to protect the user name and password while they are in transit from the client to the server.
Operation · System Configuration
Enforce SSL use for the login page or any page used to transmit user credentials or other sensitive information. Even if the entire site does not use SSL, it MUST use SSL for login. Additionally, to help prevent phishing attacks, make sure that SSL serves the login page.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.7.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/OSC/ondemand/security/advisories/GHSA-2cwp-8g29-9q32 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Dec 2025, 00:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-522, CWE-523

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats