Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.38% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE Intelligenceopenbao · openbao
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-XP75-R577-CVHP ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
Critical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Alpine findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine v3.23v3.23 · community | openbao | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 2.3.2-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026 |
| Alpine v3.22v3.22 · community | openbao | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 2.3.2-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026 |
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gogithub.com/openbao/openbao | >= 0.1.0, < 2.3.2 | 2.3.2 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 11 Aug 2025 |
| gogithub.com/openbao/openbao | < 0.0.0-20250806194004-a14053c9679d | 0.0.0-20250806194004-a14053c9679d | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 11 Aug 2025 |
Critical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch availableOpenBao exists to provide a software solution to manage, store, and distribute sensitive data including secrets, certificates, and keys. In versions 2.3.1 and below, some OpenBao deployments intentionally limit privileged API operators from executing system code or making network connections. However, these operators can bypass both restrictions through the audit subsystem by manipulating log prefixes. This allows unauthorized code execution and network access that violates the intended security model. This issue is fixed in version 2.3.2. To workaround, users can block access to sys/audit/* endpoints using explicit deny policies, but root operators cannot be restricted this way.
OpenBao exists to provide a software solution to manage, store, and distribute sensitive data including secrets, certificates, and keys. In versions 2.3.1 and below, some OpenBao deployments intentionally limit privileged API operators from executing system code or making network connections. However, these operators can bypass both restrictions through the audit subsystem by manipulating log prefixes. This allows unauthorized code execution and network access that violates the intended security model. This issue is fixed in version 2.3.2. To workaround, users can block access to sys/audit/* endpoints using explicit deny policies, but root operators cannot be restricted this way.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
OpenBao exists to provide a software solution to manage, store, and distribute sensitive data including secrets, certificates, and keys. In versions 2.3.1 and below, some OpenBao deployments intentionally limit privileged API operators from executing system code or making network connections. However, these operators can bypass both restrictions through the audit subsystem by manipulating log prefixes. This allows unauthorized code execution and network access that violates the intended security model. This issue is fixed in version 2.3.2. To workaround, users can block access to sys/audit/* endpoints using explicit deny policies, but root operators cannot be restricted this way.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with elevated privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'). The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 9 Aug 2025 · Last source change 11 Aug 2025, 13:56 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.