Sensitive Information in LogsWeakness · CWE-532

CVE-2025-1979

MEDIUM · 6.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-03-06
Patch available
A vendor patch is available. No clean upgrade release — apply the published patch.
See remediation →
66/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click Patch available

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
Versions of the package ray before 2.43.0 are vulnerable to Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File where the redis password is being logged in the standard logging. If the redis password is passed as an argument, it will be logged and could potentially leak the password. This is only exploitable if: 1) Logging is enabled; 2) Redis is using password authentication; 3) Those logs are accessible to an attacker, who can reach that redis instance. **Note:** It is recommended that anyone who is running in this configuration should update to the latest version of Ray, then rotate their redis password.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-532

Sensitive values — secrets, tokens, session identifiers, personal data — are written into log files, so anyone with access to the logs, which is often a broad group, obtains them. It turns a routine diagnostic into a credential leak. The fix is redacting sensitive data before it is logged and tightly restricting who can read the logs.

General guidance for the sensitive information in logs class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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
Local
Complexity
High
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

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.

dbcve · scoped
Patch available Apply the vendor patch
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

ray >= 2.43.0

  1. 1. Stop any running Ray instances that may be using the vulnerable version
  2. 2. Back up your current Ray configuration files and any custom scripts that handle Redis passwords
  3. 3. Upgrade Ray to version 2.43.0 or later by running: pip install --upgrade ray>=2.43.0 (or your package manager's equivalent)
  4. 4. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version: python -c 'import ray; print(ray.__version__)'
  5. 5. After upgrading, rotate your Redis password that was previously exposed in logs, as it may have been compromised
  6. 6. Restart Ray services with the new version
  7. 7. Confirm logs no longer contain Redis password by examining recent log output

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can apply and verify the patch for your build — typical engagement from $1,600. Get the patch applied

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-1979 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-1979 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