VulnerabilityPublished 21 Oct 2025Updated 30 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-54471: github.com/neuvector/neuvector · NeuVector is shipping cryptographic material into its binary

Affects github.com/neuvector/neuvectorSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-54471· Medium 6.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 5.4.7 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 22:51 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 5.4.7, 0.0.0-20251020133207-084a437033b4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 30 Oct 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 github.com/neuvector/neuvector to 5.4.7; github.com/neuvector/neuvector to 0.0.0-20251020133207-084a437033b4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/neuvector/neuvector	Affected >=5.3.0 <5.4.7	Fixed in 5.4.7
Gogithub.com/neuvector/neuvector	Affected >=0.0.0-20230727023453-1c4957d53911 <0.0.0-20251020133207-084a437033b4	Fixed in 0.0.0-20251020133207-084a437033b4

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

Description

### Impact NeuVector used a hard-coded cryptographic key embedded in the source code. At compilation time, the key value was replaced with the secret key value and used to encrypt sensitive configurations when NeuVector stores the data. In the patched version, NeuVector leverages the Kubernetes secret `neuvector-store-secret` in `neuvector` namespace to dynamically generate cryptographically secure random keys. This approach removes the reliance on static key values and ensures that encryption keys are managed securely within Kubernetes. During rolling upgrade or restoring from persistent storage, the NeuVector controller checks each encrypted configured field. If a sensitive field in the configuration is found to be encrypted by the default encryption key, it’s decrypted with the default encryption key and then re-encrypted with the new dynamic encryption key. If the NeuVector controller does not have the correct RBAC for accessing the new secret, it writes this error log : `Required Kubernetes RBAC for secrets are not found` and exits. The device encryption key is rotated every 3 months. For details, please refer to this [Rotating Self-Signed Certificate](https://open-docs.neuvector.com/configuration/console/certrotate) documentation. ### Patches Patched versions include release **v5.4.7** and above. ### Workarounds There is no workaround for this issue. Users are recommended to upgrade, as soon as possible, to a version of NeuVector that contains the fix. ### References If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: - Reach out to the [SUSE Rancher Security team](https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/policy) for security related inquiries. - Open an issue in the [NeuVector](https://github.com/neuvector/neuvector/issues/new/choose) repository. - Verify with our [support matrix](https://www.suse.com/suse-neuvector/support-matrix/all-supported-versions/neuvector-v-all-versions/) and [product support lifecycle](https://www.suse.com/lifecycle/#suse-security).

CWE-321Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a hard-coded, unchangeable cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
Prevention schemes mirror that of hard-coded password storage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (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

WeaknessesCWE-321

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats