CVE-2025-69287
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-69287 is a medium-severity Improper Following of Specification by Caller (CWE-573) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 5.4 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 21th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-207789
Vulnerability Data
The BSV Blockchain SDK is a unified TypeScript SDK for developing scalable apps on the BSV Blockchain. Prior to version 2.0.0, a cryptographic vulnerability in the TypeScript SDK's BRC-104 authentication implementation caused incorrect signature data preparation, resulting in signature incompatibility…
more
between SDK implementations and potential authentication bypass scenarios. The vulnerability was located in the `Peer.ts` file of the TypeScript SDK, specifically in the `processInitialRequest` and `processInitialResponse` methods where signature data is prepared for BRC-104 mutual authentication. The TypeScript SDK incorrectly prepared signature data by concatenating base64-encoded nonce strings (`message.initialNonce + sessionNonce`) then decoding the concatenated base64 string (`base64ToBytes(concatenatedString)`). This produced ~32-34 bytes of signature data instead of the correct 64 bytes. BRC-104 authentication relies on cryptographic signatures to establish mutual trust between peers. When signature data preparation is incorrect, signatures generated by the TypeScript SDK don't match those expected by Go/Python SDKs; cross-implementation authentication fails; and an attacker could potentially exploit this to bypass authentication checks. The fix in version 2.0.0 ensures all SDKs now produce identical cryptographic signatures, restoring proper mutual authentication across implementations.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover cases where callers fail to follow required specifications or APIs.
Requiring a documented development process and standards reduces the chance that callers will deviate from language, framework, or protocol specifications.
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 correct adherence to language, framework, protocol and platform specifications during implementation.
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 specification non-compliance but does not itself prevent the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates adherence to language, framework and protocol specifications, directly reducing improper caller behavior.
Application security requirements explicitly capture specification compliance obligations that callers must follow.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include specification adherence as a design constraint.
Secure coding standards enforce correct use of APIs, protocols and language features, mitigating caller specification violations.
Change management can catch specification drift during updates but is not a primary mitigation.