10 CVE-2025-29813
[Spoofable identity claims] Authentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data in Azure DevOps allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-29813
Categories
CWE-302 : Authentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data
The authentication scheme or implementation uses key data elements that are assumed to be immutable, but can be controlled or modified by the attacker. Implement proper protection for immutable data (e.g. environment variable, hidden form fields, etc.) DebPloit Web auth Authentication bypass by setting certain cookies to "true". Authentication bypass by setting certain cookies to "true". Admin access by setting a cookie. Gain privileges by setting cookie. Product trusts authentication information in cookie. Authentication bypass by setting admin-testing variable to true. Bypass auth and gain privileges by setting a variable.
CWE-287 : Improper Authentication
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct. An alternate term is "authentification", which appears to be most commonly used by people from non-English-speaking countries. "AuthN" is typically used as an abbreviation of "authentication" within the web application security community. It is also distinct from "AuthZ," which is an abbreviation of "authorization." The use of "Auth" as an abbreviation is discouraged, since it could be used for either authentication or authorization. "AuthC" is used as an abbreviation of "authentication," but it appears to used less frequently than "AuthN." Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature. File-sharing PHP product does not check if user is logged in during requests for PHP library files under an includes/ directory, allowing configuration changes, code execution, and other impacts. Chat application skips validation when Central Authentication Service(CAS) is enabled, effectively removing the second factor fromtwo-factor authentication Python-based authentication proxy does not enforce password authentication during the initial handshake, allowing the client to bypass authentication by specifying a 'None' authentication type. Chain: Web UI for a Python RPC framework does not use regex anchors to validate user login emails (CWE-777), potentially allowing bypass of OAuth (CWE-1390). TCP-based protocol in Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) has no authentication. Condition Monitor uses a protocol that does not require authentication. Safety Instrumented System uses proprietary TCP protocols with no authentication. Distributed Control System (DCS) uses a protocol that has no authentication. SCADA system only uses client-side authentication, allowing adversaries to impersonate other users. Chain: Python-based HTTP Proxy server uses the wrong boolean operators (CWE-480) causing an incorrect comparison (CWE-697) that identifies an authN failure if all three conditions are met instead of only one, allowing bypass of the proxy authentication (CWE-1390) Chain: Cloud computing virtualization platform does not require authentication for upload of a tar format file (CWE-306), then uses .. path traversal sequences (CWE-23) in the file to access unexpected files, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. IT management product does not perform authentication for some REST API requests, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Firmware for a WiFi router uses a hard-coded password for a BusyBox shell, allowing bypass of authentication through the UART port Bluetooth speaker does not require authentication for the debug functionality on the UART port, allowing root shell access Default setting in workflow management product allows all API requests without authentication, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Stack-based buffer overflows in SFK for wifi chipset used for IoT/embedded devices, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Mail server does not properly check an access token before executing a Powershell command, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Chain: user is not prompted for a second authentication factor (CWE-287) when changing the case of their username (CWE-178), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Authentication bypass by appending specific parameters and values to a URI, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Mail server does not generate a unique key during installation, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. LDAP Go package allows authentication bypass using an empty password, causing an unauthenticated LDAP bind login script for guestbook allows bypassing authentication by setting a "login_ok" parameter to 1. admin script allows authentication bypass by setting a cookie value to "LOGGEDIN". VOIP product allows authentication bypass using 127.0.0.1 in the Host header. product uses default "Allow" action, instead of default deny, leading to authentication bypass. chain: redirect without exit (CWE-698) leads to resultant authentication bypass. product does not restrict access to a listening port for a critical service, allowing authentication to be bypassed. product does not properly implement a security-related configuration setting, allowing authentication bypass. authentication routine returns "nil" instead of "false" in some situations, allowing authentication bypass using an invalid username. authentication update script does not properly handle when admin does not select any authentication modules, allowing authentication bypass. use of LDAP authentication with anonymous binds causes empty password to result in successful authentication product authentication succeeds if user-provided MD5 hash matches the hash in its database; this can be subjected to replay attacks. chain: product generates predictable MD5 hashes using a constant value combined with username, allowing authentication bypass.
References
CPE
| cpe |
start |
end |
| Configuration 1 |
| cpe:2.3:a:microsoft:azure_devops:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:* |
|
|
REMEDIATION
EXPLOITS
Exploit-db.com
| id |
description |
date |
|
| No known exploits |
POC Github
Other Nist (github, ...)
CAPEC
Common Attack Pattern Enumerations and Classifications
| id |
description |
severity |
| 10 |
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
This attack pattern involves causing a buffer overflow through manipulation of environment variables. Once the adversary finds that they can modify an environment variable, they may try to overflow associated buffers. This attack leverages implicit trust often placed in environment variables. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program to perform the buffer overflow on. In this attack the adversary looks for an application that loads the content of an environment variable into a buffer. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. [Craft overflow content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing. [Overflow the buffer] Using the injection vector, the adversary injects the crafted overflow content into the buffer. |
High |
| 13 |
Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary. [Probe target application] The adversary first probes the target application to determine important information about the target. This information could include types software used, software versions, what user input the application consumes, and so on. Most importantly, the adversary tries to determine what environment variables might be used by the underlying software, or even the application itself. [Find user-controlled environment variables] Using the information found by probing the application, the adversary attempts to manipulate any user-controlled environment variables they have found are being used by the application, or suspect are being used by the application, and observe the effects of these changes. If the adversary notices any significant changes to the application, they will know that a certain environment variable is important to the application behavior and indicates a possible attack vector. [Manipulate user-controlled environment variables] The adversary manipulates the found environment variable(s) to abuse the normal flow of processes or to gain access to privileged resources. |
Very High |
| 21 |
Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers
[Survey the application for Indicators of Susceptibility] Using a variety of methods, until one is found that applies to the target, the adversary probes for cookies, session tokens, or entry points that bypass identifiers altogether. [Fetch samples] The adversary fetches many samples of identifiers. This may be through legitimate access (logging in, legitimate connections, etc.) or via systematic probing. [Impersonate] An adversary can use successful experiments or authentications to impersonate an authorized user or system or to laterally move within a system or application [Spoofing] Malicious data can be injected into the target system or into a victim user's system by an adversary. The adversary can also pose as a legitimate user to perform social engineering attacks. [Data Exfiltration] The adversary can obtain sensitive data contained within the system or application. |
High |
| 274 |
HTTP Verb Tampering
An attacker modifies the HTTP Verb (e.g. GET, PUT, TRACE, etc.) in order to bypass access restrictions. Some web environments allow administrators to restrict access based on the HTTP Verb used with requests. However, attackers can often provide a different HTTP Verb, or even provide a random string as a verb in order to bypass these protections. This allows the attacker to access data that should otherwise be protected. |
Medium |
| 31 |
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies
This attack relies on the use of HTTP Cookies to store credentials, state information and other critical data on client systems. There are several different forms of this attack. The first form of this attack involves accessing HTTP Cookies to mine for potentially sensitive data contained therein. The second form involves intercepting this data as it is transmitted from client to server. This intercepted information is then used by the adversary to impersonate the remote user/session. The third form is when the cookie's content is modified by the adversary before it is sent back to the server. Here the adversary seeks to convince the target server to operate on this falsified information. [Obtain copy of cookie] The adversary first needs to obtain a copy of the cookie. The adversary may be a legitimate end user wanting to escalate privilege, or could be somebody sniffing on a network to get a copy of HTTP cookies. [Obtain sensitive information from cookie] The adversary may be able to get sensitive information from the cookie. The web application developers may have assumed that cookies are not accessible by end users, and thus, may have put potentially sensitive information in them. [Modify cookie to subvert security controls.] The adversary may be able to modify or replace cookies to bypass security controls in the application. |
High |
| 39 |
Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data Tokens
In circumstances where an application holds important data client-side in tokens (cookies, URLs, data files, and so forth) that data can be manipulated. If client or server-side application components reinterpret that data as authentication tokens or data (such as store item pricing or wallet information) then even opaquely manipulating that data may bear fruit for an Attacker. In this pattern an attacker undermines the assumption that client side tokens have been adequately protected from tampering through use of encryption or obfuscation. [Enumerate information passed to client side] The attacker identifies the parameters used as part of tokens to take business or security decisions [Determine protection mechanism for opaque token] The attacker determines the protection mechanism used to protect the confidentiality and integrity of these data tokens. They may be obfuscated or a full blown encryption may be used. [Modify parameter/token values] Trying each parameter in turn, the attacker modifies the values [Cycle through values for each parameter.] Depending on the nature of the application, the attacker now cycles through values of each parameter and observes the effects of this modification in the data returned by the server |
Medium |
| 45 |
Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
This type of attack leverages the use of symbolic links to cause buffer overflows. An adversary can try to create or manipulate a symbolic link file such that its contents result in out of bounds data. When the target software processes the symbolic link file, it could potentially overflow internal buffers with insufficient bounds checking. [Identify target application] The adversary identifies a target application or program that might load in certain files to memory. [Find injection vector] The adversary identifies an injection vector to deliver the excessive content to the targeted application's buffer. [Craft overflow file content] The adversary crafts the content to be injected. If the intent is to simply cause the software to crash, the content need only consist of an excessive quantity of random data. If the intent is to leverage the overflow for execution of arbitrary code, the adversary crafts the payload in such a way that the overwritten return address is replaced with one of the adversary's choosing. [Overflow the buffer] Using the specially crafted file content, the adversary creates a symbolic link from the identified resource to the malicious file, causing a targeted buffer overflow attack. |
High |
| 77 |
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables. [Probe target application] The adversary first probes the target application to determine important information about the target. This information could include types software used, software versions, what user input the application consumes, and so on. [Find user-controlled variables] Using the information found by probing the application, the adversary attempts to manipulate many user-controlled variables and observes the effects on the application. If the adversary notices any significant changes to the application, they will know that a certain variable is useful to the application. [Manipulate user-controlled variables] Once the adversary has found a user-controller variable(s) that is important to the application, they will manipulate it to change the normal behavior in a way that benefits the adversary. |
Very High |
| 114 |
Authentication Abuse
An attacker obtains unauthorized access to an application, service or device either through knowledge of the inherent weaknesses of an authentication mechanism, or by exploiting a flaw in the authentication scheme's implementation. In such an attack an authentication mechanism is functioning but a carefully controlled sequence of events causes the mechanism to grant access to the attacker. |
Medium |
| 115 |
Authentication Bypass
An attacker gains access to application, service, or device with the privileges of an authorized or privileged user by evading or circumventing an authentication mechanism. The attacker is therefore able to access protected data without authentication ever having taken place. |
Medium |
| 151 |
Identity Spoofing
Identity Spoofing refers to the action of assuming (i.e., taking on) the identity of some other entity (human or non-human) and then using that identity to accomplish a goal. An adversary may craft messages that appear to come from a different principle or use stolen / spoofed authentication credentials. |
Medium |
| 194 |
Fake the Source of Data
An adversary takes advantage of improper authentication to provide data or services under a falsified identity. The purpose of using the falsified identity may be to prevent traceability of the provided data or to assume the rights granted to another individual. One of the simplest forms of this attack would be the creation of an email message with a modified "From" field in order to appear that the message was sent from someone other than the actual sender. The root of the attack (in this case the email system) fails to properly authenticate the source and this results in the reader incorrectly performing the instructed action. Results of the attack vary depending on the details of the attack, but common results include privilege escalation, obfuscation of other attacks, and data corruption/manipulation. |
Medium |
| 22 |
Exploiting Trust in Client
An attack of this type exploits vulnerabilities in client/server communication channel authentication and data integrity. It leverages the implicit trust a server places in the client, or more importantly, that which the server believes is the client. An attacker executes this type of attack by communicating directly with the server where the server believes it is communicating only with a valid client. There are numerous variations of this type of attack. |
High |
| 57 |
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data
This attack utilizes a REST(REpresentational State Transfer)-style applications' trust in the system resources and environment to obtain sensitive data once SSL is terminated. [Find a REST-style application that uses SSL] The adversary must first find a REST-style application that uses SSL to target. Because this attack is easier to carry out from inside of a server network, it is likely that an adversary could have inside knowledge of how services operate. [Insert a listener to sniff client-server communication] The adversary inserts a listener that must exist beyond the point where SSL is terminated. This can be placed on the client side if it is believed that sensitive information is being sent to the client as a response, although most often the listener will be placed on the server side to listen for client authentication information. [Gather information passed in the clear] If developers have not hashed or encrypted data sent in the sniffed request, the adversary will be able to read this data in the clear. Most commonly, they will now have a username or password that they can use to submit requests to the web service just as an authorized user |
Very High |
| 593 |
Session Hijacking
This type of attack involves an adversary that exploits weaknesses in an application's use of sessions in performing authentication. The adversary is able to steal or manipulate an active session and use it to gain unathorized access to the application. [Discover Existing Session Token] Through varrying means, an adversary will discover and store an existing session token for some other authenticated user session. [Insert Found Session Token] The attacker attempts to insert a found session token into communication with the targeted application to confirm viability for exploitation. [Session Token Exploitation] The attacker leverages the captured session token to interact with the targeted application in a malicious fashion, impersonating the victim. |
Very High |
| 633 |
Token Impersonation
An adversary exploits a weakness in authentication to create an access token (or equivalent) that impersonates a different entity, and then associates a process/thread to that that impersonated token. This action causes a downstream user to make a decision or take action that is based on the assumed identity, and not the response that blocks the adversary. |
Medium |
| 650 |
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server
By exploiting insufficient permissions, it is possible to upload a web shell to a web server in such a way that it can be executed remotely. This shell can have various capabilities, thereby acting as a "gateway" to the underlying web server. The shell might execute at the higher permission level of the web server, providing the ability the execute malicious code at elevated levels. |
High |
| 94 |
Adversary in the Middle (AiTM)
[Determine Communication Mechanism] The adversary determines the nature and mechanism of communication between two components, looking for opportunities to exploit. [Position In Between Targets] The adversary inserts themself into the communication channel initially acting as a routing proxy between the two targeted components. [Use Intercepted Data Maliciously] The adversary observes, filters, or alters passed data of its choosing to gain access to sensitive information or to manipulate the actions of the two target components for their own purposes. |
Very High |
MITRE
Techniques
| id |
description |
| T1040 |
Network Sniffing |
| T1134 |
Access Token Manipulation |
| T1185 |
Browser Session Hijacking |
| T1505.003 |
Server Software Component:Web Shell |
| T1528 |
Steal Application Access Token |
| T1539 |
Steal Web Session Cookie |
| T1548 |
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism |
| T1550.001 |
Use Alternate Authentication Material:Application Access Token |
| T1557 |
Adversary-in-the-Middle |
| T1562.003 |
Impair Defenses:Impair Command History Logging |
| T1563 |
Remote Service Session Hijacking |
| T1574.006 |
Hijack Execution Flow:Dynamic Linker Hijacking |
| T1574.007 |
Hijack Execution Flow:Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable |
| © 2022 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation. |
Mitigations
| id |
description |
| M1018 |
In cloud environments, ensure that users are not granted permissions to create or modify traffic mirrors unless this is explicitly required. |
| M1018 |
An adversary must already have administrator level access on the local system to make full use of this technique; be sure to restrict users and accounts to the least privileges they require. |
| M1017 |
Close all browser sessions regularly and when they are no longer needed. |
| M1018 |
Enforce the principle of least privilege by limiting privileges of user accounts so only authorized accounts can modify the web directory. |
| M1017 |
Users need to be trained to not authorize third-party applications they don’t recognize. The user should pay particular attention to the redirect URL: if the URL is a misspelled or convoluted sequence of words related to an expected service or SaaS application, the website is likely trying to spoof a legitimate service. Users should also be cautious about the permissions they are granting to apps. For example, offline access and access to read emails should excite higher suspicions because adversaries can utilize SaaS APIs to discover credentials and other sensitive communications. |
| M1017 |
Train users to identify aspects of phishing attempts where they're asked to enter credentials into a site that has the incorrect domain for the application they are logging into. Additionally, train users not to run untrusted JavaScript in their browser, such as by copying and pasting code or dragging and dropping bookmarklets. |
| M1018 |
Limit the privileges of cloud accounts to assume, create, or impersonate additional roles, policies, and permissions to only those required. Where just-in-time access is enabled, consider requiring manual approval for temporary elevation of privileges. |
| M1021 |
Update corporate policies to restrict what types of third-party applications may be added to any online service or tool that is linked to the company's information, accounts or network (e.g., Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, Basecamp, GitHub). However, rather than providing high-level guidance on this, be extremely specific—include a list of per-approved applications and deny all others not on the list. Administrators may also block end-user consent through administrative portals, such as the Azure Portal, disabling users from authorizing third-party apps through OAuth and forcing administrative consent. |
| M1017 |
Train users to be suspicious about certificate errors. Adversaries may use their own certificates in an attempt to intercept HTTPS traffic. Certificate errors may arise when the application’s certificate does not match the one expected by the host. |
| M1028 |
Make sure that the <code>HISTCONTROL</code> environment variable is set to “ignoredups” instead of “ignoreboth” or “ignorespace”. |
| M1018 |
Limit remote user permissions if remote access is necessary. |
| M1028 |
When System Integrity Protection (SIP) is enabled in macOS, the aforementioned environment variables are ignored when executing protected binaries. Third-party applications can also leverage Apple’s Hardened Runtime, ensuring these environment variables are subject to imposed restrictions. Admins can add restrictions to applications by setting the setuid and/or setgid bits, use entitlements, or have a __RESTRICT segment in the Mach-O binary. |
| M1022 |
Ensure that proper permissions and directory access control are set to deny users the ability to write files to the top-level directory <code>C:</code> and system directories, such as <code>C:Windows</code>, to reduce places where malicious files could be placed for execution. Require that all executables be placed in write-protected directories. |
| © 2022 The MITRE Corporation. Esta obra se reproduce y distribuye con el permiso de The MITRE Corporation. |
Cybersecurity needs ?
Strengthen software security from the outset with our DevSecOps expertise
Integrate security right from the start of the software development cycle for more robust applications and greater customer confidence.
Our team of DevSecOps experts can help you secure your APIs, data pipelines, CI/CD chains, Docker containers and Kubernetes deployments.
Discover this offer
