CVE-2025-25204
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-25204 is a medium-severity Detection of Error Condition Without Action (CWE-390) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 32th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-4090
Vulnerability Data
`gh` is GitHub’s official command line tool. Starting in version 2.49.0 and prior to version 2.67.0, under certain conditions, a bug in GitHub's Artifact Attestation cli tool `gh attestation verify` causes it to return a zero exit status when no…
more
attestations are present. This behavior is incorrect: When no attestations are present, `gh attestation verify` should return a non-zero exit status code, thereby signaling verification failure. An attacker can abuse this flaw to, for example, deploy malicious artifacts in any system that uses `gh attestation verify`'s exit codes to gatekeep deployments. Users are advised to update `gh` to patched version `v2.67.0` as soon as possible.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation will surface code paths that detect errors yet perform no subsequent action.
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.
Declaring incidents when criteria are met forces action on detected errors; eliminating the weakness helps but does not define the criteria themselves.
Triaging and validating reports compels follow-up on detections; removing the weakness supports but does not replace triage processes.
Analysis of detected events directly counters ignoring them, but does not guarantee every error condition is covered.
Monitoring produces detections, yet supplies no requirement to act on them.
Generating logs enables later action but does not enforce handling of each error condition.
Root-cause analysis of incidents requires acting on detected anomalies, though it applies after an incident is already declared.
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.
Security testing can uncover missing error handling, but does not ensure the weakness is eliminated in production code.
Logging captures error conditions but does not guarantee subsequent handling or remediation.
Monitoring activities can detect errors, yet without defined response procedures the weakness persists.
Secure development lifecycle practices encourage proper error handling, but do not mandate it for every detected condition.
Secure coding standards typically require explicit error handling, reducing the likelihood of silent failures.