CVE-2025-13957
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 · uneditedCWE-798: Use of Hard-coded Credentials vulnerability exists that could cause information disclosure and remote code execution when SOCKS Proxy is enabled, and administrator credentials and PostgreSQL database credentials are known. SOCKS Proxy is disabled by default.
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 · moderate confidenceA CWE-798 hard-coded credentials vulnerability exists in the SOCKS Proxy feature that, when enabled, could allow an attacker with knowledge of both administrator credentials and PostgreSQL database credentials to achieve information disclosure and remote code execution. The SOCKS Proxy feature is disabled by default, which reduces the attack surface for unmodified installations.
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
- High
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify SOCKS Proxy configuration statusLocate the SOCKS Proxy settings in the product configuration file or admin interface and determine whether the feature is currently enabled or disabled.Affected if SOCKS Proxy is enabled (the vulnerability is only exploitable when the feature is turned on)
-
Check installed product versionRetrieve the installed version of the product using the vendor-provided command or by inspecting version files, then compare it against the affected version range provided by the vendor.Affected if The installed version falls within the vendor-specified affected range and SOCKS Proxy is enabled
-
Inspect SOCKS Proxy authentication settingsExamine the SOCKS Proxy configuration for any hard-coded or static credentials, or review the product documentation to confirm whether default credentials are in use.Affected if Hard-coded credentials exist in the SOCKS Proxy configuration and the feature is enabled
-
Audit access to administrative interfaceReview access logs or authentication records to determine whether the administrative interface is exposed and whether PostgreSQL database credentials could be obtained by an attacker.Affected if Both administrator credentials and PostgreSQL database credentials are discoverable or guessable by an attacker while SOCKS Proxy is enabled
The environment is affected if SOCKS Proxy is enabled and an attacker could obtain both administrator and PostgreSQL database credentials.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataEnsure SOCKS Proxy remains disabled unless explicitly required, and work with the vendor to obtain a patch that removes hard-coded credentials. If enabled, disable SOCKS Proxy immediately and rotate all credentials (administrator and PostgreSQL).
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,128.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-13957 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-13957 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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