VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jul 2025Updated 7 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-7079: mao888 bluebell-plus · Use of Hard-coded Password

Affects mao888 bluebell-plusSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jul 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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
GitHubmao888/bluebell-plus`pkg:github/mao888/bluebell-plus`Other threats	Affected 2.0 – 2.3.0 4 affected builds	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should first identify all instances of bluebell-plus versions 2.0 to 2.3.0 within their environment. Since no official patches are currently linked, immediate mitigation includes: 1) Replacing or overriding the hard-coded secret with a securely generated, unique secret key for JWT signing and validation. This may require code changes or configuration adjustments if supported. 2) Restricting network access to the bluebell-plus service to trusted internal networks or VPNs to reduce exposure. 3) Implementing additional authentication layers or monitoring for anomalous JWT token usage. 4) Conducting thorough code reviews and penetration testing focused on JWT handling to identify any further weaknesses. 5) Staying alert for vendor updates or patches and applying them promptly once released. 6) Employing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block suspicious JWT-related traffic. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific JWT secret management and network exposure aspects of this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in mao888 bluebell-plus up to 2.3.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file bluebell_backend/pkg/jwt/jwt.go of the component JWT Token Handler. The manipulation of the argument mySecret with the input bluebell-plus leads to use of hard-coded password. The attack may be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using bluebell-plus, this vulnerability could undermine the security of JWT-based authentication, potentially allowing attackers to impersonate users or escalate privileges if they can leverage the hard-coded secret. This could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data or systems, impacting confidentiality and trust in affected applications. Given the medium severity and high attack complexity, the immediate risk may be moderate, but the public disclosure increases the likelihood of targeted attacks over time. Organizations in sectors with stringent data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government, could face regulatory and reputational damage if exploited. The remote attack vector means that exposed services accessible over the internet are particularly at risk. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild and the high complexity somewhat mitigate the immediate threat level.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…