F5os AOperating system · F5
CVE-2025-46265
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 · uneditedOn F5OS, an improper authorization vulnerability exists where remotely authenticated users (LDAP, RADIUS, TACACS+) may be authorized with higher privilege F5OS roles. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
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 confidenceF5OS contains an improper authorization vulnerability where remotely authenticated users via LDAP, RADIUS, or TACACS+ can be assigned higher privilege F5OS roles than intended. This allows authenticated users to escalate their privileges beyond what their properly authorized role should permit.
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
F5os AOperating system
= 1.5.1
F5os COperating system
>= 1.6.0, <= 1.6.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Check F5OS versionUse the command 'show system version' or access the F5OS management interface to view the installed version. For F5OS-A, look for version 1.5.1. For F5OS-C, look for versions 1.6.0, 1.6.1, or 1.6.2.Affected if The installed version matches exactly 1.5.1 for F5OS-A or falls between 1.6.0 and 1.6.2 inclusive for F5OS-C.
-
Verify LDAP authentication is enabledCheck the F5OS configuration for LDAP remote authentication settings using 'show authentication ldap' or review the authentication providers in the management interface.Affected if LDAP authentication is configured and active on the system.
-
Verify RADIUS authentication is enabledCheck the F5OS configuration for RADIUS remote authentication settings using 'show authentication radius' or review the authentication providers in the management interface.Affected if RADIUS authentication is configured and active on the system.
-
Verify TACACS+ authentication is enabledCheck the F5OS configuration for TACACS+ remote authentication settings using 'show authentication tacacs' or review the authentication providers in the management interface.Affected if TACACS+ authentication is configured and active on the system.
The environment is affected if F5OS-A version 1.5.1 or F5OS-C versions 1.6.0 through 1.6.2 is running AND LDAP, RADIUS, or TACACS+ remote authentication is enabled.
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 dataUpdate F5OS to a patched version that addresses this authorization flaw. Review role mappings for LDAP, RADIUS, and TACACS+ authentication to ensure users receive only their intended privilege level.
Fix this in F5os A
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46265 — 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-2025-46265 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