Insufficiently Protected CredentialsWeakness · CWE-522

CVE-2025-22372

CRITICAL · 9.3 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-04-14
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges 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
Insufficiently Protected Credentials vulnerability in SicommNet BASEC on SaaS allows Password Recovery. Passwords are either stored in plain text using reversible encryption, allowing an attacker with sufficient privileges to extract plain text passwords easily. This issue affects BASEC: from 14 Dec 2021.

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

BASEC SaaS stores user passwords using reversible encryption instead of proper cryptographic hashing (e.g., bcrypt, Argon2). An attacker with sufficient privileges can extract plaintext passwords from the storage layer. This violates fundamental password storage security principles and enables credential theft.

MitigationVendor must implement proper password hashing (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, Argon2) and deprecate reversible encryption. Users should be migrated to new hashing, and password resets should be enforced post-remediation.

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
None
Authentication
Y
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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:Y/R:X/V:C/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 BASEC installation and locate credential store
    Search for BASEC installation directories and identify files related to user authentication, password storage, or credential management (e.g., config files, database files, or credential vault files).
    Affected if BASEC is installed and stores user credentials in any file or database.
  2. Examine password storage configuration
    Review configuration files (e.g., config.xml, application.conf, auth settings) for parameters related to password encryption, encoding, or hashing mechanisms. Look for settings like 'encryption', 'cipher', ' reversible', or custom password storage methods.
    Affected if Configuration shows reversible encryption is enabled (e.g., 'encryption=true', ' reversible_encoding', or similar settings) instead of modern hashing.
  3. Inspect stored password format
    Examine the actual stored password values in the credential store or user database table. Check if the password data appears as encrypted strings that could be reversed, or if they match the format of proper salted hashes (e.g., bcrypt $2a$..., Argon2, PBKDF2).
    Affected if Passwords appear as encrypted/reversible strings (Base64, hex-encoded cipher text) rather than salted hash strings.
  4. Verify hashing algorithm in use
    If database access is available, query the user table or credential table to inspect the algorithm identifier embedded in stored password fields, or review source code/configuration for the password encoder implementation.
    Affected if The implementation uses reversible encryption (AES, DES, etc.) or a weak hashing method (MD5, SHA1 without salt) rather than dedicated password hashing algorithms.

A defender is affected if BASEC is installed and stores user passwords using reversible encryption rather than modern salted password hashing algorithms like bcrypt or Argon2.

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

Vendor must implement proper password hashing (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, Argon2) and deprecate reversible encryption. Users should be migrated to new hashing, and password resets should be enforced post-remediation.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,720
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,352.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-22372 — 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-2025-22372 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