VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jan 2026Updated 20 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-68671: treeverse lakeFS · Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay

Affects treeverse lakeFSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 1.75.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.75.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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 15 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade lakeFS and treeverse/lakeFS to 1.75.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
treeverselakeFS	Affected <1.75.0	Fixed in 1.75.0
GitHubtreeverse/lakeFS`pkg:github/treeverse/lakeFS`Other threats	Affected <1.75.0	Fixed in 1.75.0

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade all lakeFS deployments to version 1.75.0 or later, where the timestamp validation flaw is fixed. Organizations should implement strict credential rotation policies to limit the window of exposure for captured signed requests. Network security controls such as encryption (TLS) and network segmentation can reduce the risk of request capture. Monitoring and logging of repeated identical requests may help detect replay attempts. Additionally, organizations should review their object storage access patterns and consider implementing additional layers of authentication or request validation where feasible. Employing anomaly detection tools that flag unusual request patterns to the S3 gateway can provide early warning. Finally, educating developers and administrators about the risks of replay attacks and secure handling of signed requests is recommended.

Description

lakeFS is an open-source tool that transforms object storage into a Git-like repositories. LakeFS's S3 gateway does not validate timestamps in authenticated requests, allowing replay attacks. Prior to 1.75.0, an attacker who captures a valid signed request (e.g., through network interception, logs, or compromised systems) can replay that request until credentials are rotated, even after the request is intended to expire. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.75.0.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on lakeFS to manage critical object storage repositories. Replay attacks can lead to unauthorized data access or modification, compromising data confidentiality and integrity. This risk is heightened in sectors handling sensitive or regulated data, such as finance, healthcare, and government. Unauthorized replayed requests could allow attackers to retrieve or alter stored objects, potentially leading to data breaches or disruption of data workflows. Since the vulnerability does not affect availability directly, denial-of-service impacts are minimal. However, the trustworthiness of version-controlled object storage is critical for compliance and operational integrity, so exploitation could have regulatory and reputational consequences. Organizations with automated pipelines or CI/CD processes integrating lakeFS could see cascading effects if malicious replayed requests alter stored artifacts or configurations.

CWE-294Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
Architecture and Design
Utilize some sequence or time stamping functionality along with a checksum which takes this into account in order to ensure that messages can be parsed only once.
Architecture and Design
Since any attacker who can listen to traffic can see sequence numbers, it is necessary to sign messages with some kind of cryptography to ensure that sequence numbers are not simply doctored along with content.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Session Sidejacking (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Remote Services with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Windows Admin Shares with Stolen Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) (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 23 Jan 2026, 19:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-294

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats