dbcve.org
Information ExposureWeakness · CWE-200

CVE-2025-12148

MEDIUM · 6.0 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-10-29
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
66/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
In Search Guard versions 3.1.1 and earlier, Field Masking (FM) rules are improperly enforced on fields of type IP (IP Address). While the content of these fields is properly redacted in the _source document returned by search operations, the results do return documents (hits) when searching based on a specific IP values. This allows to reconstruct the original contents of the field. Workaround - If you cannot upgrade immediately, you can avoid the problem by using field level security (FLS) protection on fields of the affected types instead of field masking.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

Search Guard's Field Masking (FM) feature fails to properly protect IP address fields. While the actual IP values are redacted in _source document responses, the search engine still matches and returns documents when queries target specific IP values, allowing attackers to deduce original field contents through enumeration.

MitigationUpgrade Search Guard beyond version 3.1.1, or temporarily apply Field Level Security (FLS) rules instead of Field Masking on IP-type fields as a workaround.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify Search Guard installation
    Check for Search Guard plugin presence in the Elasticsearch/OpenSearch plugins directory or query the plugins API endpoint (e.g., GET /_plugins/_security/plugins)
    Affected if Search Guard is not installed - this CVE does not apply
  2. Determine Search Guard version
    Query the Search Guard configuration API (e.g., GET /_plugins/_security/config) or check the installed plugin JAR file name in the plugins directory
    Affected if Version is 3.1.1 or lower - these versions contain the vulnerability
  3. Verify Field Masking is enabled
    Review the Search Guard configuration file (sg_config.yml) or query the internal security configuration for entries under 'field_masking' or 'fls_mask' settings
    Affected if Field Masking is explicitly defined and active in the configuration
  4. Confirm IP-type fields are protected by Field Masking
    Examine the field masking rules in the Search Guard configuration and identify if any fields with IP data types (or fields named similarly to ip*, *_ip, address) are listed under the masking rules
    Affected if IP-type fields are listed under Field Masking rules - the vulnerability applies to these fields specifically
  5. Test enumeration behavior on IP fields
    Perform a query targeting a specific IP value against an index with masked IP fields (e.g., GET /<index>/_search with query {"query":{"match":{"ip_field":"192.168.1.1"}}}) and verify if documents are returned despite _source showing redacted values
    Affected if Documents are returned for IP value queries while _source displays masked values - this confirms the vulnerability is exploitable

A user is affected if they run Search Guard version 3.1.1 or lower with Field Masking configured on IP-type fields, as the enumeration attack described in the CVE will succeed.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade Search Guard beyond version 3.1.1, or temporarily apply Field Level Security (FLS) rules instead of Field Masking on IP-type fields as a workaround.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
13.0 hours of engineering $2,330
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,728.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12148 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-12148 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data