CVE-2025-11621VulnerabilityPublished 24 Nov 2025Updated 12 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: RHTAS 1.3.1 - Red Hat Trusted Artifact Signer Release

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-11621· High 8.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High.

Data as of 12 Nov 2026, 18:32 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 23 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 12 Nov 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

AI-suggested

Users should monitor Red Hat advisories for updates. Since mitigation options are limited or do not meet Red Hat's standards, organizations should carefully evaluate their use of Vault's AWS Auth method, particularly avoiding configurations where the bound_principal_iam role is the same across AWS accounts or uses wildcards. Engaging with Red Hat support or technical account managers may provide additional guidance.

Description

CVE-2025-11621 is an authentication bypass vulnerability affecting HashiCorp Vault's AWS Auth method. The flaw occurs when the configured bound_principal_iam role is the same across AWS accounts or uses a wildcard, potentially allowing unauthorized access. This vulnerability impacts Red Hat products that include Vault, as noted in Red Hat's security advisory. No official fix or patch is currently available that meets Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, deployment, and stability. The Red Hat Trusted Artifact Signer (RHTAS) Operator is related but does not have fixes for this CVE in the 1.3.1 release. The vulnerability has a high severity rating based on Red Hat's assessment.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker to bypass authentication in Vault's AWS Auth method under specific conditions, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive secrets or credentials managed by Vault. This compromises confidentiality and integrity of the affected systems. There is no known exploitation in the wild at this time. The lack of an official fix means affected systems remain at risk until mitigations or patches are provided.

Summary

An authentication bypass flaw (CVE-2025-11621) exists in HashiCorp Vault's AWS Auth method. The issue arises if the bound_principal_iam role is identical across AWS accounts or uses a wildcard, enabling potential bypass of authentication controls. Red Hat's advisory highlights this vulnerability affecting Vault components included in their products. The flaw is classified under CWE-288 (Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel) and CWE-770. Red Hat has not provided a patch or fix that meets their standards for this vulnerability, and mitigation options are limited or insufficient. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3 base score of 8.1 (high severity) as per Red Hat's scoring, indicating a significant impact on confidentiality and integrity without affecting availability.

CWE-288Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
Architecture and Design
Funnel all access through a single choke point to simplify how users can access a resource. For every access, perform a check to determine if the user has permissions to access the resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Nov 2026, 18:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-288, CWE-770

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats