Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-5mrf-j8v6-f45g CVE-2025-65014

LibreNMS has Weak Password Policy

Low Packagist
Severity
3.7 / 10
Low · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.27%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 19.63% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-521 Weak Password Requirements
Fix
25.11.0
Upgrade librenms/librenms to this version or later

Description

Summary

A Weak Password Policy vulnerability was identified in the user management functionality of the LibreNMS application. This vulnerability allows administrators to create accounts with extremely weak and predictable passwords, such as 12345678. This exposes the platform to brute-force and credential stuffing attacks.

Details

Vulnerable Component: User creation / password definition

The application fails to enforce a strong password policy when creating new users. As a result, administrators can define trivial and well-known weak passwords, compromising the authentication security of the system.

PoC

  1. Log in to the application using an Administrator account.

  2. Navigate to the user management section:

  3. Create a new user account using the password 12345678.

<img width="1103" height="852" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a20d4226-9f86-46ee-a4e6-45be91bb6b7b" />

  1. The application accepts the weak password without restrictions and creates the account successfully.

<img width="1359" height="487" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9bec15bf-b38f-448b-8f98-acca5724e143" />

Impact

Weak password policy vulnerabilities can have severe consequences, including:

  • Increased risk of brute-force and credential stuffing attacks

  • Unauthorized access to user or administrative accounts

  • Privilege escalation through compromised credentials

  • Degradation of the overall security posture of the platform

Mitigation

  • Enforce a strong password policy (e.g., minimum of 12 characters with uppercase, lowercase, digits, and special characters).

  • Block the use of commonly known weak passwords (e.g., 12345678, password, admin, qwerty).

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
librenms/librenms
< 25.11.0
25.11.0

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

librenms/librenms Packagist → 25.11.0

composer
composer require librenms/librenms:^25.11.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 3.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-521: Weak Password Requirements

The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length Restrictions against password reuse Restrictions against using common passwords Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several additional attributes. Complex passwords requiring mixed character sets (alpha, numeric, special, mixed case) Increasing the range of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. Unfortunately, a complex password may be difficult to memorize, encouraging a user to select a short password or to incorrectly manage the password (write it down). Another disadvantage of this approach is that it often does not result in a significant increases in overal password complexity due to people's predictable usage of various symbols. Large Minimum Length (encouraging passphrases instead of passwords) Increasing the number of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. A disadvantage of this approach is that selecting a good passphrase is not easy and poor passwords can still be generated. Some prompting may be needed to encourage long un-predictable passwords. Randomly Chosen Secrets Generating a password for the user can help make sure that length and complexity requirements are met, and can result in secure passwords being used. A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting password or passpharse may be too difficult to memorize, encouraging them to be written down. See NIST 800-63B [REF-1053] for further information on password requirements.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
  • Implementation: Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.
  • Implementation: Previously, "password expiration" was widely advocated as a defense-in-depth approach to minimize the risk of weak passwords, and it has become a common practice. Password expiration requires a password to be changed within a fixed time window (such as every 90 days). However, this approach has significant limitations in the current threat landscape, and its utility has been reduced in light of the adoption of related protection mechanisms (such as password complexity and computational effort), along with the recognition that regular password changes often caused users to generate more predictable passwords. As a result, this is now a Discouraged Common Practice [REF-1488] [REF-1489], especially as the sole factor in protecting passwords. It is still strongly encouraged to force password changes in case of evidence of compromise, but this is not the same as a forced "expiration" on an arbitrary time frame.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-7w8c-qgxg-m7jx
LibreNMS — Stored XSS via SNMP/Syslog Data in Legacy Templates
High Also affects librenms/librenms
GHSA-7gww-x7fh-jf9j
LibreNMS: SSRF-driven stored XSS via Oxidized API response fields in device showconfig page
Critical Also affects librenms/librenms
GHSA-7cj5-v4pp-v632
LibreNMS: Stored XSS via graph_descr admin config settings echoed without escaping to all authenticated users
Medium Also affects librenms/librenms
GHSA-jf24-8g2h-2wg7
LibreNMS Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via AboutController
High Also affects librenms/librenms
GHSA-c9fv-cgmm-2wg7
LibreNMS Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution by Signal Alert Transportation module
High Also affects librenms/librenms
GHSA-jmqm-f8q4-v7wx
LibreNMS: Reflected XSS via Proxmox instance/vmid GET parameters injected into document.title JavaScript assignment
Medium Also affects librenms/librenms
GHSA-5gm9-622f-qcg5
LibreNMS: Cross-Site Scripting in ShowConfigController
Medium Also affects librenms/librenms
GHSA-pr3g-phhr-h8fh
LibreNMS is Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution by Arbitrary File Write
High Also affects librenms/librenms
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor