CVE-2025-58435 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-58435
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-58435 Details

Status: Received on 09 Sep 2025, 20:15 UTC

Published on: 09 Sep 2025, 20:15 UTC

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-58435 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-58435: Open OnDemand is an open-source HPC portal. Prior to versions 3.1.15 and 4.0.7, noVNC interactive applications did not correctly rotate the password when TurboVNC was higher than version 3.1.2. The likelihood of exploitation is low as a user would need to share their link to an active desktop session and the other user would need to be authenticated to the portal. But obtaining the link would allow that user to perform any actions as the original user and access their data. Open OnDemand 3.1.15 and 4.0.7 have patched this vulnerability and correctly rotate passwords for any version of TurboVNC. As a workaround, downgrade TurboVNC to a version lower than 3.1.2.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-58435

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-58435 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-58435

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-58435.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-58435, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-58435, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-58435 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-58435 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-58435 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-58435 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-262

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Dictionary-based Password Attack CAPEC-16 An attacker tries each of the words in a dictionary as passwords to gain access to the system via some user's account. If the password chosen by the user was a word within the dictionary, this attack will be successful (in the absence of other mitigations). This is a specific instance of the password brute forcing attack pattern. Dictionary Attacks differ from similar attacks such as Password Spraying (CAPEC-565) and Credential Stuffing (CAPEC-600), since they leverage unknown username/password combinations and don't care about inducing account lockouts.
  • Password Brute Forcing CAPEC-49 An adversary tries every possible value for a password until they succeed. A brute force attack, if feasible computationally, will always be successful because it will essentially go through all possible passwords given the alphabet used (lower case letters, upper case letters, numbers, symbols, etc.) and the maximum length of the password.
  • Kerberoasting CAPEC-509 Through the exploitation of how service accounts leverage Kerberos authentication with Service Principal Names (SPNs), the adversary obtains and subsequently cracks the hashed credentials of a service account target to exploit its privileges. The Kerberos authentication protocol centers around a ticketing system which is used to request/grant access to services and to then access the requested services. As an authenticated user, the adversary may request Active Directory and obtain a service ticket with portions encrypted via RC4 with the private key of the authenticated account. By extracting the local ticket and saving it disk, the adversary can brute force the hashed value to reveal the target account credentials.
  • Rainbow Table Password Cracking CAPEC-55 An attacker gets access to the database table where hashes of passwords are stored. They then use a rainbow table of pre-computed hash chains to attempt to look up the original password. Once the original password corresponding to the hash is obtained, the attacker uses the original password to gain access to the system.
  • Remote Services with Stolen Credentials CAPEC-555 This pattern of attack involves an adversary that uses stolen credentials to leverage remote services such as RDP, telnet, SSH, and VNC to log into a system. Once access is gained, any number of malicious activities could be performed.
  • Use of Known Domain Credentials CAPEC-560 An adversary guesses or obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate credentials (e.g. userID/password) to achieve authentication and to perform authorized actions under the guise of an authenticated user or service.
  • Windows Admin Shares with Stolen Credentials CAPEC-561 An adversary guesses or obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate Windows administrator credentials (e.g. userID/password) to access Windows Admin Shares on a local machine or within a Windows domain.
  • Password Spraying CAPEC-565 In a Password Spraying attack, an adversary tries a small list (e.g. 3-5) of common or expected passwords, often matching the target's complexity policy, against a known list of user accounts to gain valid credentials. The adversary tries a particular password for each user account, before moving onto the next password in the list. This approach assists the adversary in remaining undetected by avoiding rapid or frequent account lockouts. The adversary may then reattempt the process with additional passwords, once enough time has passed to prevent inducing a lockout.
  • Credential Stuffing CAPEC-600 An adversary tries known username/password combinations against different systems, applications, or services to gain additional authenticated access. Credential Stuffing attacks rely upon the fact that many users leverage the same username/password combination for multiple systems, applications, and services.
  • Use of Known Kerberos Credentials CAPEC-652 An adversary obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate Kerberos credentials (e.g. Kerberos service account userID/password or Kerberos Tickets) with the goal of achieving authenticated access to additional systems, applications, or services within the domain.
  • Use of Known Operating System Credentials CAPEC-653 An adversary guesses or obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate operating system credentials (e.g. userID/password) to achieve authentication and to perform authorized actions on the system, under the guise of an authenticated user or service. This applies to any Operating System.
  • Try Common or Default Usernames and Passwords CAPEC-70 An adversary may try certain common or default usernames and passwords to gain access into the system and perform unauthorized actions. An adversary may try an intelligent brute force using empty passwords, known vendor default credentials, as well as a dictionary of common usernames and passwords. Many vendor products come preconfigured with default (and thus well-known) usernames and passwords that should be deleted prior to usage in a production environment. It is a common mistake to forget to remove these default login credentials. Another problem is that users would pick very simple (common) passwords (e.g. "secret" or "password") that make it easier for the attacker to gain access to the system compared to using a brute force attack or even a dictionary attack using a full dictionary.

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-58435: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-10197 – A vulnerability was found in HJSoft HCM Human Resources Management System up to 20250822. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionalit...
  • CVE-2025-10195 – A vulnerability has been found in Seismic App 2.4.2 on Android. Affected is an unknown function of the file AndroidManifest.xml of the component co...
  • CVE-2025-59046 – The npm package `interactive-git-checkout` is an interactive command-line tool that allows users to checkout a git branch while it prompts for the ...
  • CVE-2025-59044 – Himmelblau is an interoperability suite for Microsoft Azure Entra ID and Intune. Himmelblau 0.9.x derives numeric GIDs for Entra ID groups from the...
  • CVE-2025-59042 – PyInstaller bundles a Python application and all its dependencies into a single package. Due to a special entry being appended to `sys.path` during...