CVE-2025-48929
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 · uneditedThe TeleMessage service through 2025-05-05 implements authentication through a long-lived credential (e.g., not a token with a short expiration time) that can be reused at a later date if discovered by an adversary.
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 confidenceThe TeleMessage service uses long-lived authentication credentials (static passwords or API keys without expiration) instead of short-lived tokens. If these credentials are discovered by an attacker through any means (log leakage, traffic interception, database breach, etc.), they can be reused indefinitely to authenticate to the service, providing persistent unauthorized access.
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<= 2025-05-05CVSS 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 Smarsh Telemessage installationLocate Smarsh Telemessage in your environment - check installed software, running services, application directories, or system documentation for presence of this productAffected if Smarsh Telemessage is present in the environment
-
Determine installed versionObtain the installed version of Smarsh Telemessage (typically via software inventory, application metadata, version file, or vendor documentation) and compare to the affected version <= 2025-05-05Affected if Version is 2025-05-05 or earlier
-
Review authentication configurationExamine the authentication configuration for Smarsh Telemessage - check configuration files, admin console settings, or API documentation for credential type settings to identify if static passwords or API keys are in useAffected if Static passwords or API keys without expiration are configured as authentication method
-
Verify credential lifecycle settingsInspect credential management settings within Smarsh Telemessage to determine if passwords or API keys have expiration dates, rotation requirements, or token refresh mechanisms configuredAffected if No expiration, rotation, or refresh mechanisms are defined for the authentication credentials
Environment is affected if Smarsh Telemessage version is 2025-05-05 or earlier AND static long-lived credentials (passwords or API keys without expiration) are in use for authentication
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 dataReplace long-lived credentials with short-lived, rotating tokens (e.g., OAuth access tokens, JWTs with expiration) and implement token refresh, rotation, and revocation mechanisms to limit the window of opportunity for credential reuse attacks.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $13,440.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-48929 — 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-2025-48929 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