CVE-2025-9604VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-9604: coze-studio · Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key

Affects coze-studioSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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: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:X

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

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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Aug 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 2026-10-26.

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
coze-studio	Affected =0.2.0 =0.2.1 =0.2.2 =0.2.3 =0.2.4	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should take the following specific steps: 1) Immediately identify any deployments of coze-studio versions 0.2.0 to 0.2.4 within their environments. 2) Monitor vendor communications for the release of patches addressing this vulnerability and prioritize timely patching once available. 3) Until patches are applied, restrict network exposure of coze-studio services to trusted networks only, using firewalls and network segmentation to reduce attack surface. 4) Review and audit cryptographic key management practices in coze-studio configurations, and where possible, override default keys with user-defined keys or environment-specific secrets. 5) Implement additional monitoring and alerting for unusual authentication or encryption-related activities that could indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Conduct security assessments and penetration testing focused on cryptographic modules to detect potential key leakage or misuse. 7) Educate developers and administrators on secure key management principles to prevent recurrence of hard-coded keys in future software versions or customizations.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in coze-studio up to 0.2.4. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file backend/domain/plugin/encrypt/aes.go. The manipulation of the argument AuthSecretKey/StateSecretKey/OAuthTokenSecretKey leads to use of hard-coded cryptographic key . It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The attack is considered to have high complexity. The exploitability is regarded as difficult. To fix this issue, it is recommended to deploy a patch. The vendor replied to the GitHub issue (translated from simplified Chinese): "For scenarios requiring encryption, we will implement user-defined key management through configuration and optimize the use of encryption tools, such as random salt."

Impact

For European organizations using coze-studio versions 0.2.0 through 0.2.4, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized decryption or token compromise if attackers can extract the hard-coded keys. While the confidentiality impact is limited, exposure of authentication tokens or encryption keys could lead to unauthorized access or data leakage. Given the medium severity and high complexity of exploitation, the immediate risk is moderate but should not be ignored, especially in environments handling sensitive or regulated data. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government, which often use encryption for data protection and authentication, could face compliance issues under GDPR if cryptographic keys are compromised. The remote attack vector means that attackers do not need physical or internal network access, increasing the threat surface. However, the lack of known exploits and difficult exploitability somewhat reduces the immediate threat level. Still, the presence of hard-coded keys is a fundamental security flaw that undermines trust in the software's encryption mechanisms.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Aug 2025, 02:02 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats