CVE-2025-49831
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 attacker of Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted installations that route traffic from Secrets Manager to AWS through a misconfigured network device can reroute authentication requests to a malicious server under the attacker’s control. CyberArk believes there to be very few installations where this issue can be actively exploited, though Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted (formerly Conjur Enterprise) prior to versions 13.5.1 and 13.6.1 and Conjur OSS prior to version 1.22.1 may be affected. Conjur OSS version 1.22.1 and Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted versions 13.5.1 and 13.6.1 fix the issue.
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 man-in-the-middle vulnerability in Secrets Manager Self-Hosted (formerly Conjur Enterprise) and Conjur OSS allows attackers to intercept and reroute authentication requests destined for AWS through misconfigured network devices to a malicious server under the attacker's control.
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< 1.22.1< 13.5.1= 13.6CVSS 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 installed Conjur versionCheck the running Conjur version through the UI, API, or container/tag metadata. Common methods include: conjur --version, checking Docker image tags, or querying the Conjur API at /info endpoint.Affected if The installed version is less than 1.22.1 for Conjur OSS, or less than 13.5.1 (or exactly 13.6) for Secrets Manager Self-Hosted/Conjur Enterprise.
-
Determine if AWS authentication is configuredReview Conjur policy files and configuration to identify whether any AWS IAM role-based authentication is enabled. Check for AWS-related authenticator definitions in the policy tree.Affected if AWS authenticator module is enabled and configured, meaning authentication requests to AWS are being made from this Conjur instance.
-
Inspect network routing to AWS endpointsReview network configuration, routing tables, and proxy settings to trace how traffic from Conjur reaches AWS IAM endpoints (such as sts.amazonaws.com). Check for any intermediary devices, proxies, or VPN configurations that could divert traffic.Affected if Network paths to AWS can be intercepted by untrusted devices or redirected through attacker-controlled infrastructure due to weak routing controls.
-
Verify TLS/SSL inspection configurationsExamine whether any network devices (proxies, firewalls, load balancers) between Conjur and AWS are performing TLS interception or SSL inspection that could expose credentials to a MITM attack.Affected if TLS inspection by untrusted or misconfigured network devices is present between Conjur and AWS services.
You are affected if your Conjur version falls within the vulnerable range AND AWS authentication is configured with network paths that could allow an attacker to intercept traffic to AWS endpoints.
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 · scoped1.22.113.5.1
Update to Conjur OSS version 1.22.1 or Secrets Manager Self-Hosted versions 13.5.1/13.6.1, and review network routing configurations to ensure traffic to AWS cannot be diverted through untrusted network devices.
Conjur OSS: 1.22.1; Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted: 13.5.1 or 13.6.1
- Identify which Conjur product is in use: Conjur OSS or Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted (formerly Conjur Enterprise)
- Check current installed version to confirm it is affected (Conjur OSS < 1.22.1, Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted < 13.5.1, or Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted = 13.6)
- For Conjur OSS: Plan upgrade to version 1.22.1
- For Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted: Plan upgrade to version 13.5.1 or 13.6.1
- Review upgrade documentation and perform backup of configuration and data
- Execute upgrade following standard Conjur upgrade procedures
- Verify the upgrade was successful and the version is correct
- Test authentication flows to confirm the fix is working
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-49831 — 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-2025-49831 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