CVE-2025-8415
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-8415 is a medium-severity Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name (CWE-289) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 24th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25390
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in the Cryostat HTTP API. Cryostat's HTTP API binds to all network interfaces, allowing possible external visibility and access to the API port if Network Policies are disabled, allowing an unauthenticated, malicious attacker to jeopardize the…
more
environment.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
The vulnerability directly exposes the Cryostat HTTP API on all interfaces without authentication when network policies are absent, enabling remote exploitation of a public-facing application.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly prevents external network access to the API by enforcing boundary controls and network segmentation when policies are absent.
Enforces information flow policies that restrict API traffic to authorized internal interfaces only.
Limits service exposure by disabling unnecessary network bindings and interfaces on the Cryostat deployment.
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.
Strong authentication mechanisms directly prevent name-based bypass when they enforce canonical name checks.
Proper identity management reduces alternate-name collisions but does not guarantee canonicalization inside the auth decision.
Authorization policy enforcement assumes correct identity; the weakness occurs before policy is applied.
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-control policy can mandate canonical-name checks but does not prescribe the technical implementation.
Identity-management processes can require unique, canonical identifiers, reducing alternate-name bypass risk.
Proper management of authentication credentials can include rules against duplicate or alias identities.
Access-rights provisioning can enforce canonical-name validation when granting rights.
Information-access-restriction mechanisms can implement canonical-name checks to prevent bypass.
Secure-authentication controls can require canonical identifiers and reject alternate names.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that reduce the attack surface for weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Derived transitively via CVE→CWE→STIG over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only).
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-244557 Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating systems version 7.2 or newer booted with a BIOS must have a unique name for the grub superusers account when booting into single-user and maintenance modes. via CWE-289
- V-244558 Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating systems version 7.2 or newer booted with United Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) must have a unique name for the grub superusers account when booting into single-user mode and maintenance. via CWE-289
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-244522 RHEL 8 operating systems booted with a BIOS must require a unique superusers name upon booting into single-user and maintenance modes. via CWE-289