CVE-2025-30066
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 · uneditedtj-actions changed-files before 46 allows remote attackers to discover secrets by reading actions logs. (The tags v1 through v45.0.7 were affected on 2025-03-14 and 2025-03-15 because they were modified by a threat actor to point at commit 0e58ed8, which contained malicious updateFeatures code.)
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 confidenceA supply chain attack compromised the tj-actions/changed-files GitHub Action (versions v1-v45.0.7), where a threat actor injected malicious 'updateFeatures' code into commit 0e58ed8. This malicious code allowed remote attackers to discover secrets by reading GitHub Actions logs, exploiting the action's execution in CI/CD workflows.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 45.0.7CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/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 tj-actions/changed-files usageSearch repository workflow files (.github/workflows/*.yml or *.yaml) for 'tj-actions/changed-files' or 'tj-actions/changed_files' in the 'uses:' fieldAffected if The action is present in any workflow file
-
Check the version being usedExamine the 'uses:' line for the action, looking for a version tag or commit SHA (e.g., 'v34.1.1', '@sha256:...', or no version specified which defaults to latest)Affected if The version is v45.0.7 or lower, or no specific version is pinned (could resolve to a compromised version)
-
Review workflow runs from March 14-15, 2025In the GitHub repository, go to Actions tab and filter/filter by date range March 14-15, 2025 to identify runs that may have used the compromised action versionAffected if Workflow runs exist during March 14-15, 2025 and used the affected action version
-
Audit logs for secret exposureInspect workflow run logs from the affected timeframe for any lines containing exposed secrets, environment variables, or API tokens that were not intentionally loggedAffected if Logs from the affected period contain unexpected secret values, API keys, tokens, or sensitive environment variable contents
A user is affected if they used tj-actions/changed-files version 45.0.7 or lower AND had workflow runs during March 14-15, 2025, which may have exposed secrets in their logs.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpdate to v45.0.8 or later, review and audit GitHub Actions logs for unauthorized secret access during March 14-15, 2025, and rotate any credentials potentially exposed through the compromised action versions.
tj-actions/changed-files version 46.0.0 or later
- Locate all workflow files that reference 'tj-actions/changed-files' (commonly in .github/workflows/)
- Identify the version tag being used (e.g., '@v1', '@v34', '@v45.0.7')
- Update the version reference from the affected version (any version <=45.0.7) to '@v46.0.0' or later (e.g., change 'tj-actions/[email protected]' to 'tj-actions/[email protected]')
- Review the tj-actions/changed-files release notes for version 46 to check for any behavior changes that may affect your workflows
- Commit and push the updated workflow files
- Monitor your GitHub Actions runs to ensure the updated version functions correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-30066 — 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- github.com
- blog.gitguardian.com
- sysdig.com
- www.stepsecurity.io
- blog.gitguardian.com
- news.ycombinator.com
- news.ycombinator.com
- semgrep.dev
- www.stream.security
- www.sweet.security
- www.wiz.io
- www.cisa.gov
- github.com
- github.com
- github.com
- github.com
- github.com
- github.com
- github.com
- github.com
- github.com
- web.archive.org
- www.cisa.gov
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-30066 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