GHSA-7rx2-769v-hrwf BIT-vault-2025-6013 CVE-2025-6013 GO-2025-3848
HashiCorp Vault ldap auth method may not have correctly enforced MFA
High
Go
- Severity
- 6.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.53%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 45.00% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-156 Improper Neutralization of Whitespace
- Fix
1.20.2- Upgrade github.com/hashicorp/vault to this version or later
Description
Vault and Vault Enterprise’s (“Vault”) ldap auth method may not have correctly enforced MFA if username_as_alias was set to true and a user had multiple CNs that are equal but with leading or trailing spaces. Fixed in Vault Community Edition 1.20.2 and Vault Enterprise 1.20.2, 1.19.8, 1.18.13, and 1.16.24.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/hashicorp/vault | < 1.20.2 |
1.20.2 |
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.
github.com/hashicorp/vault Go → 1.20.2
- go
go get github.com/hashicorp/vault@v1.20.2 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 6.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-156: Improper Neutralization of Whitespace
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as whitespace when they are sent to a downstream component.
How to prevent it
- Developers should anticipate that whitespace will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- Implementation: While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-88v5-9hxc-f85r HashiCorp Vault Vulnerable to Denial-of-Service via Unauthenticated Root Token Generation/Rekey Operations | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-8r5m-3f66-qpr3 HashiCorp Vault has Server-Side Request Forgery in ACME Challenge Validation via Attacker-Controlled DNS | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-72gw-fmmr-c4r4 HashiCorp Vault May Expose Tokens to Auth Plugins Due to Incorrect Header Sanitization | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-m2w4-8ggf-rj47 HashiCorp Vault has a KVv2 Metadata and Secret Deletion Policy Bypass that leads to Denial-of-Service | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-vp5w-xcfc-73wf Hashicorp Vault and Vault Enterprise vulnerable to a denial of service when processing JSON | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-9g4h-h484-3578 HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise's AWS Auth method may be susceptible to authentication bypass | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-8f82-53h8-2p34 HashiCorp Vault Community Edition Denial of Service Though Complex JSON Payloads | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-6c5r-4wfc-3mcx Hashicorp Vault has Incorrect Validation for Non-CA Certificates | Medium | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
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