CVE-2025-54336
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-54336 is a critical-severity Incorrect Comparison (CWE-697) vulnerability in Aziz (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027); ranked at the 41th 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 AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25168
Vulnerability Data
In Plesk Obsidian 18.0.70, _isAdminPasswordValid uses an == comparison. Thus, if the correct password is "0e" followed by any digit string, then an attacker can login with any other string that evaluates to 0.0 (such as the 0e0 string). This…
more
occurs in admin/plib/LoginManager.php.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly exercises security-relevant comparisons to discover incorrect logic.
A reference monitor must be small and correct, structurally limiting the chance of flawed comparison logic in authorization decisions.
Security engineering principles require correct implementation of comparison logic used for access and authentication decisions.
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 development practices directly require correct logic for security comparisons and thereby prevent this class of flaw.
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 detect incorrect comparison flaws before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes code review and testing that can catch incorrect comparison logic.
Application security requirements can mandate correct comparison logic for security decisions.
Secure architecture principles can require robust comparison mechanisms for access decisions.
Secure coding standards directly address avoiding incorrect comparison operators and logic.
Secure authentication mechanisms rely on correct comparison of credentials or tokens.