CVE-2025-2230
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 · uneditedA flaw exists in the Windows login flow where an AuthContext token can be exploited for replay attacks and authentication bypass.
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 vulnerability in the Windows login flow allows AuthContext tokens to be replayed, enabling authentication bypass. This is a session/token management flaw where tokens can be reused across authentication attempts without proper validation or expiration checks.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Identify if Windows login uses AuthContext tokensReview your authentication logs and Windows event logs (Security event ID 4624/4625) for authentication requests. Check if AuthContext or similar token-based authentication is implemented in your Windows login flow.Affected if Your Windows login implementation uses AuthContext tokens for authentication and you observe repeated use of identical token values across multiple login attempts.
-
Check for token replay protection mechanismsExamine your authentication server configuration or Windows authentication service settings. Look for nonce, counter, or one-time-use validation that prevents token reuse.Affected if No nonce, counter, or one-time-use validation is present in the authentication flow, allowing identical tokens to be accepted on subsequent attempts.
-
Verify token expiration validation existsInspect the authentication validation logic or Active Directory Federation Services (AD FS) configuration if used. Check whether tokens are validated for expiration timestamp before accepting them.Affected if Tokens are accepted without checking expiration time, or tokens can be reused after their supposed validity period has passed.
-
Confirm unique token generation per sessionTest by performing multiple login attempts with the same credentials from the same client. Capture and compare the AuthContext tokens generated for each attempt.Affected if Identical AuthContext tokens are generated for separate login sessions with the same credentials, indicating no per-session uniqueness.
-
Check for token binding validationReview authentication validation code or settings to determine if tokens are bound to specific client credentials or session identifiers.Affected if Tokens can be replayed from different client contexts or sessions without additional credential validation.
You are affected if your Windows login flow uses AuthContext tokens that can be reused across authentication attempts without proper expiration checks, unique per-session generation, or replay protection.
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 dataImplement proper token expiration, unique token generation per session, and validation checks to prevent replay attacks. Consider adding token binding to client credentials and implementing nonce/counter measures.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-2230 — 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-2025-2230 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