Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-25196 is a medium-severity Improper Authorization (CWE-285) vulnerability in Openfga Helm Charts. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 35th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-25196 is an authorization bypass vulnerability affecting OpenFGA versions prior to v1.8.4, including Helm chart versions before openfga-0.2.22 and Docker images before v1.8.4. OpenFGA is a high-performance authorization and permission engine inspired by Google Zanzibar. The flaw occurs during certain Check and ListObjects API calls when a model has a relation directly assignable to both public access and a userset of the same type, a type-bound public access tuple is assigned to an object, no userset tuple is assigned to the same object, and the Check request's user field is a userset matching the type of the public access tuple's user.
The vulnerability can be exploited by unauthenticated remote attackers with network access to the OpenFGA instance, requiring low complexity and no privileges. By crafting a Check or ListObjects request meeting the specified conditions, attackers can bypass authorization checks, potentially gaining high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts as reflected in the CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8. This allows unauthorized access to sensitive authorization data or objects that should be restricted.
The official security advisory and patch commit recommend upgrading to OpenFGA v1.8.5, which is backwards compatible and addresses the issue. No workarounds are available. Details are provided in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/openfga/openfga/security/advisories/GHSA-g4v5-6f5p-m38j and the fixing commit at https://github.com/openfga/openfga/commit/0aee4f47e0c642de78831ceb27bb62b116f49588.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-4651
Vulnerability Data
OpenFGA is a high-performance and flexible authorization/permission engine built for developers and inspired by Google Zanzibar. OpenFGA < v1.8.4 (Helm chart < openfga-0.2.22, docker < v.1.8.4) are vulnerable to authorization bypass when certain Check and ListObject calls are executed. Users…
more
on OpenFGA v1.8.4 or previous, specifically under the following conditions are affected by this authorization bypass vulnerability: 1. Calling Check API or ListObjects with a model that has a relation directly assignable to both public access AND userset with the same type. 2. A type bound public access tuple is assigned to an object. 3. userset tuple is not assigned to the same object. and 4. Check request's user field is a userset that has the same type as the type bound public access tuple's user type. Users are advised to upgrade to v1.8.5 which is backwards compatible. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Mandates that access-control decisions are made and applied to each request before access occurs.
Requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that performs authorization checks.
Directly requires enforcement of approved authorizations for every access request, stopping improper or missing checks.
Limits granted privileges so that even a bypassed check affects fewer resources.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.AA-05 mostly prevents CWE-285 via enforced policy, reviews, and least-privilege authorization decisions, yet CWE-285 remains only partially prevented because code-level check omissions or errors can still occur outside that single control.
Secure SDLC practices catch and eliminate most authorization defects before release, yet a single broad outcome cannot address every design, role, and runtime facet of CWE-285.
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities and access-request workflows that can support downstream authorization decisions, yet does nothing to enforce or verify authorization checks inside a product, leaving CWE-285 fully unaddressed by this control alone.
Network segmentation/zero-trust limits external reachability (partial prevention of exploitation) but leaves application-level authorization logic untouched, so the CWE remains fully introducible and only one facet of its risk is addressed.
PR.PS-05 blocks unauthorized binaries/DNS while CWE-285 is an in-product authorization-check defect, so the control neither prevents the weakness nor removes any of its risk.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Granular, policy-driven assignment of permissions and dynamic enforcement of those permissions prevent the incorrect or missing authorization decisions that lead to improper authorization flaws.
By requiring documented authorization rules and periodic policy reviews, the control makes it less likely that authorization decisions will be omitted or implemented inconsistently across applications.
Mapping access rights to information classification and business requirements forces correct enforcement of authorization decisions, blocking the incorrect authorization weakness at the policy and implementation stage.
Independent reviewers evaluate whether authorization logic matches policy, thereby reducing the window in which incorrect or missing authorization checks remain in production.
By requiring managers to verify that authorization decisions match policy and to remediate deviations, the control limits the persistence of incorrect or missing authorization checks.
Requiring authorization processes and privilege assignments to be specified during project initiation prevents downstream components from receiving overly broad or incorrect rights that would allow unauthorized actions.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-252656 The OL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285
- V-248581 OL 8 must require users to provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285
RHEL 7 (3 rules)
- V-204429 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285
- V-204430 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must re-authenticate for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285
- V-251704 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-251712 The RHEL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-285