CVE-2025-59432
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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-2025-59432 is a medium-severity Observable Timing Discrepancy (CWE-208) vulnerability in Oracle (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 6.6 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Password Guessing (T1110.001); ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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 SC-31 (Covert Channel Analysis) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-29670
Vulnerability Data
SCRAM (Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism) is part of the family of Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL, RFC 4422) authentication mechanisms. Prior to version 3.2, a timing attack vulnerability exists in the SCRAM Java implementation. The issue arises because…
more
Arrays.equals was used to compare secret values such as client proofs and server signatures. Since Arrays.equals performs a short-circuit comparison, the execution time varies depending on how many leading bytes match. This behavior could allow an attacker to perform a timing side-channel attack and potentially infer sensitive authentication material. All users relying on SCRAM authentication are impacted. This vulnerability has been patched in version 3.1 by replacing Arrays.equals with MessageDigest.isEqual, which ensures constant-time comparison.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V11.2.4
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing can include timing analysis or side-channel test cases that reveal observable timing discrepancies.
Covert channel analysis directly identifies timing channels that could leak information.
Engineering principles can mandate constant-time algorithms and side-channel resistance so timing discrepancies are never introduced.
Requiring approved cryptographic modules and algorithms implicitly demands implementations free of observable timing leaks.
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 require constant-time implementations that eliminate observable timing discrepancies.
Runtime monitoring of hardware/software behavior can detect anomalous timing patterns that indicate covert channels.
Vulnerability identification processes can surface timing-channel weaknesses during design or code analysis.
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.
Detailed logging can reveal timing anomalies but does not prevent covert timing channels.
Continuous monitoring may detect timing-based exfiltration but does not eliminate the channel itself.
Network segmentation reduces attack surface but does not address intra-process timing channels.
Network segregation limits external timing observation but not internal covert timing.
Secure architecture principles can include timing-channel countermeasures but are not specific.
Secure coding guidelines may recommend constant-time algorithms but coverage is not guaranteed.