CVE-2025-29315
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 · uneditedAn issue in the Shiro-based RBAC (Role-based Access Control) mechanism of OpenDaylight Service Function Chaining (SFC) Subproject SFC Sodium-SR4 and below allows attackers to execute privileged operations via a crafted request.
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 confidenceThe vulnerability exists in the Shiro-based Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) implementation of OpenDaylight Service Function Chaining (SFC). Attackers can craft malicious requests to bypass authentication or escalate privileges, allowing execution of operations that should be restricted to authorized users. This represents a critical authentication/authorization bypass in the security framework.
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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 OpenDaylight SFC installationCheck for running SFC processes or installed packages: ps aux | grep -i sfc, or search for sfc-related JAR files in the OpenDaylight installation directory (typically under /opt or the distribution root)Affected if OpenDaylight SFC components are found running or installed
-
Determine SFC versionLook for version indicators in the SFC build files (pom.xml), release notes, or the SFC Karaf shell version command if accessible. Check the directory containing the SFC distribution for version markersAffected if Version is at or below Sodium-SR4 (SFC releases before the patch) or cannot be determined to be beyond Sodium-SR4
-
Verify Shiro RBAC is in useInspect the SFC configuration for Shiro authentication configuration: search for shiro.ini, shiro.conf, or Shiro-related XML configuration files within the SFC configuration directories (typically under etc/ or resources/)Affected if Shiro-based authentication configuration files exist and are loaded by SFC
-
Check RBAC policy configurationExamine the RBAC or access control configuration files in the SFC etc/ directory for role definitions and permission mappings that rely on Shiro for enforcementAffected if RBAC policies are defined and enforced through Shiro without additional external authentication layers
If OpenDaylight SFC is installed with a version at or below Sodium-SR4 and uses Shiro-based RBAC for authentication, the environment is vulnerable to the authorization bypass described in this CVE.
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 dataUpgrade OpenDaylight SFC to a version beyond SFC Sodium-SR4 that contains the patched RBAC implementation, or implement additional authentication layers if no upgrade is available.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-29315 — 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-2025-29315 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