CVE-2025-67303
Comfyui-Manager ≤ 3.38
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-67303 is a high-severity Unprotected Alternate Channel (CWE-420) vulnerability in Comfy Comfyui-Manager. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Fallback Channels (T1008); ranked in the top 31% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as LLM Application Platforms; in the Supply Chain and Deployment risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-8 (Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — 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.
ComfyUI-Manager versions prior to 3.38 contain a vulnerability tracked as CVE-2025-67303 and CWE-420, in which the application stores configuration and critical data files in a location that remains accessible through the web interface. The flaw received a CVSS 7.5 rating reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required authentication or user interaction, resulting in high integrity impact without confidentiality or availability effects.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can therefore reach and alter these files directly over the network, enabling manipulation of the manager's configuration and other sensitive data stored by the application.
The referenced migration documentation and commit for version 3.38 describe the corrective steps, including relocation of user data to a properly protected directory and associated configuration changes required after upgrading.
EPSS for the CVE rose from a low baseline to a recorded peak of 0.0167, indicating that exploitation interest increased after disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-0815
Vulnerability Data
An issue in ComfyUI-Manager prior to version 3.38 allowed remote attackers to potentially manipulate its configuration and critical data. This was due to the application storing its files in an insufficiently protected location that was accessible via the web interface
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- LLM Application Platforms
- Risk Domain
- Supply Chain and Deployment
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: comfyui
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Transmission confidentiality and integrity requirements apply to all transmitted data, preventing weaker protection on secondary channels.
Information flow enforcement requires consistent authorization and control over every path, directly stopping unequal protection of alternate channels.
Boundary protection mandates monitoring and control at all external and key internal interfaces, eliminating unprotected alternate channels.
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.
Protecting all data-in-transit directly mitigates unequal channel protection though the control addresses broader transit scenarios.
Network protection from unauthorized access inherently requires securing every channel, not just primaries.
Network monitoring can surface use of unprotected alternate channels but does not prevent the design 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.
Access restrictions may cover primary paths but leave alternate channels unprotected unless explicitly extended.
Secure authentication applies to primary channels but does not ensure alternate channels receive the same strength.
Network security controls ensure all channels receive equivalent protection, directly addressing unprotected alternate channels.
Security of network services requires consistent protection across all service channels, mitigating alternate-channel weaknesses.
Network segregation can reduce exposure of alternate channels but does not guarantee equivalent protection levels.
Cryptography can protect alternate channels but does not address the policy of applying equal protection across channels.