CVE-2025-32728
Openbsd Openssh 7.4 – 10.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-32728 is a medium-severity Expected Behavior Violation (CWE-440) vulnerability in Openbsd Openssh. Its CVSS base score is 4.3 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 8th 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) and SI-6 (Security and Privacy Function Verification) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-10504
Vulnerability Data
In sshd in OpenSSH before 10.0, the DisableForwarding directive does not adhere to the documentation stating that it disables X11 and agent forwarding.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly checks whether implemented functions match their specifications.
Security function verification confirms that functions operate according to their defined expected behavior.
Requiring a documented security architecture and design reduces the chance that implementation deviates from intended behavior.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly enforce specification compliance and catch expected-behavior violations during development.
Security testing and exercises help discover behavior deviations before deployment.
Vulnerability identification can surface spec-violating flaws, while eliminating the weakness reduces some vulnerability backlog.
Routine software maintenance and patching can remediate discovered specification violations.
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 in development and acceptance validates that functions behave as specified.
Secure development life cycle mandates verification against specifications, directly reducing expected-behavior violations.
Application security requirements explicitly define expected behavior that must be met.
Secure coding practices enforce adherence to functional specifications during implementation.
Change management can catch specification deviations introduced by modifications.
Documented operating procedures reduce the chance that functions deviate from intended behavior.