CVE-2025-67485VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-67485: machphy mad-proxy · Protection Mechanism Failure

Affects machphy mad-proxySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 10 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPImad-proxy`pkg:pypi/mad-proxy`Other threats	Affected <=0.3	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Immediately assess the deployment of mad-proxy within your environment and identify all instances running version 0.3 or below. 2. Restrict mad-proxy usage to highly trusted network segments where exposure risk is minimized. 3. Implement network-level controls such as firewall rules and segmentation to limit access to mad-proxy and reduce attack surface. 4. Deploy additional monitoring solutions (e.g., IDS/IPS, network traffic analysis) to detect anomalous traffic patterns that may indicate bypass attempts. 5. Consider temporarily replacing mad-proxy with alternative, well-maintained proxy solutions that provide robust interception and filtering capabilities. 6. Enforce strict TLS inspection policies and certificate pinning where feasible to reduce the risk of unmonitored HTTPS traffic. 7. Maintain rigorous logging and audit trails for all proxy traffic to facilitate incident investigation. 8. Stay informed on vendor updates and apply patches promptly once a fix becomes available. 9. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on proxy infrastructure to identify potential bypasses or weaknesses. 10. Educate security teams about this vulnerability and incorporate it into threat modeling and risk management processes.

Description

mad-proxy is a Python-based HTTP/HTTPS proxy server for detection and blocking of malicious web activity using custom security policies. Versions 0.3 and below allow attackers to bypass HTTP/HTTPS traffic interception rules, potentially exposing sensitive traffic. This issue does not have a fix at the time of publication.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-67485 is the potential exposure of sensitive web traffic that bypasses inspection by mad-proxy. This can lead to leakage of confidential information, including personal data protected under GDPR, corporate credentials, and other sensitive communications. Organizations in finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure sectors are particularly vulnerable due to the sensitivity of their data and regulatory requirements. The inability to intercept and block malicious web activity reduces overall network security posture, increasing the risk of further exploitation by attackers leveraging unmonitored traffic. Since mad-proxy is used to enforce custom security policies, bypassing these controls undermines compliance efforts and may result in regulatory penalties. The lack of a patch means organizations must rely on compensating controls, which may increase operational complexity. The vulnerability could also impact incident detection and response capabilities, as malicious traffic may evade logging and alerting mechanisms. Overall, this threat can degrade confidentiality protections and weaken defense-in-depth strategies in European enterprises.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/machphy/mad-proxy/security/advisories/GHSA-wx63-35hw-2482 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Dec 2025, 01:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats