CVE-2025-58586
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 · uneditedFor failed login attempts, the application returns different error messages depending on whether the login failed due to an incorrect password or a non-existing username. This allows an attacker to guess usernames until they find an existing one.
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 confidenceThis is a user enumeration vulnerability where the application's login function returns distinct error messages for incorrect passwords versus non-existent usernames. An attacker can exploit this by repeatedly attempting logins with different usernames, observing the error responses to determine which accounts exist in the system.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Test login error for non-existent usernameSubmit a login request with a clearly invalid username (e.g., 'nonexistentuser99999') to the application's login endpoint and capture the exact error message returnedAffected if The response contains a message indicating the username does not exist or is invalid (e.g., 'User not found', 'Account does not exist')
-
Test login error for valid username with wrong passwordSubmit a login request with a valid/known username but an incorrect password and capture the exact error message returnedAffected if The response contains a message specifically indicating the password is incorrect (e.g., 'Incorrect password', 'Wrong password')
-
Compare login error messagesCompare the two error messages obtained from the previous checks. Look for differences in wording, timing, or any indication that reveals whether the username or password was the problemAffected if The error messages differ - the system reveals whether the username is invalid versus whether the password is wrong, allowing enumeration
-
Check for HTTP response differencesExamine HTTP status codes and response headers between the two login attempts (non-existent username vs wrong password)Affected if Different HTTP status codes or noticeably different response times are observed between the two scenarios
If the login function returns distinct error messages that reveal whether a username exists in the system, the environment is vulnerable to user enumeration.
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 dataImplement generic, unified error messages for all failed login attempts (e.g., 'Invalid username or password') that do not disclose whether the username or password was incorrect.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 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-2025-58586 — 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-2025-58586 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