CVE-2025-59432VulnerabilityPublished 22 Sep 2025Updated 23 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-59432: ongres scram · Timing Side Channel

Affects ongres scramSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.6 Medium : upgrade to 3.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.2

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: Unreported

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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
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: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
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: Unreported: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept · 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 22 Sep 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

Upgrade ongres scram to 3.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ongres scram	Affected <3.2	Fixed in 3.2

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately assess their use of the ongres scram library for SCRAM authentication and identify any deployments running versions prior to 3.2. The primary mitigation is to upgrade to version 3.2 or later, which replaces the vulnerable Arrays.equals method with a constant-time comparison function (MessageDigest.isEqual). Where immediate upgrade is not feasible, organizations should consider additional network-level protections such as restricting access to authentication endpoints, implementing rate limiting to reduce timing attack feasibility, and monitoring authentication logs for anomalous access patterns. Developers should audit any custom SCRAM implementations to ensure constant-time comparison methods are used for secret data. Security teams should also educate developers and administrators about timing side-channel risks and incorporate side-channel resistant coding practices in authentication modules. Finally, organizations should stay alert for any emerging exploit tools targeting this vulnerability and apply patches promptly.

Description

SCRAM (Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism) is part of the family of Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL, RFC 4422) authentication mechanisms. Prior to version 3.2, a timing attack vulnerability exists in the SCRAM Java implementation. The issue arises because Arrays.equals was used to compare secret values such as client proofs and server signatures. Since Arrays.equals performs a short-circuit comparison, the execution time varies depending on how many leading bytes match. This behavior could allow an attacker to perform a timing side-channel attack and potentially infer sensitive authentication material. All users relying on SCRAM authentication are impacted. This vulnerability has been patched in version 3.1 by replacing Arrays.equals with MessageDigest.isEqual, which ensures constant-time comparison.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk to the confidentiality of authentication credentials when using SCRAM via the ongres scram Java library versions prior to 3.2. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to recover sensitive authentication secrets, potentially enabling unauthorized access to systems relying on SCRAM authentication. This could lead to account compromise, lateral movement, and data breaches. The vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability directly but undermines the trustworthiness of the authentication process. Organizations using PostgreSQL or other services that integrate ongres scram for SCRAM authentication are particularly at risk. Given the medium CVSS score and lack of required privileges or user interaction, remote exploitation is feasible, increasing the threat surface. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited active targeting currently. Still, the vulnerability should be considered a significant concern for sectors with high security requirements such as finance, government, and critical infrastructure in Europe.

CWE-208Observable Timing Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-385Covert Timing Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
Covert timing channels convey information by modulating some aspect of system behavior over time, so that the program receiving the information can observe system behavior and infer protected information.
Architecture and Design
Whenever possible, specify implementation strategies that do not introduce time variances in operations.
Implementation
Often one can artificially manipulate the time which operations take or -- when operations occur -- can remove information from the attacker.
Implementation
It is reasonable to add artificial or random delays so that the amount of CPU time consumed is independent of the action being taken by the application.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V6.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Domain Search Timing (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, 19:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-208, CWE-385

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats