CVE-2025-59258
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 · uneditedInsertion of sensitive information into log file in Active Directory Federation Services allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information locally.
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 confidenceThis is a local information disclosure vulnerability in Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS) where sensitive information is being written to log files. A local unauthorized attacker with access to the system could potentially read these logs to obtain sensitive data that should not have been logged.
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 versions= r2<= 10.0.14393.8519< 10.0.17763.7919< 10.0.20348.4294< 10.0.25398.1913<= 10.0.26100.6899CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
Verify ADFS is installedRun 'Get-Service adfssrv' in PowerShell or check for the 'ADFS' service in Services.msc. Also check for ADFS farm configuration with 'Get-AdfsFarm'Affected if ADFS service is present and running on the server
-
Check Windows Server version against affected rangesRun 'winver' or execute 'Get-ComputerInfo | Select-Object WindowsProductName, WindowsVersion' in PowerShell to obtain the exact build numberAffected if Server version falls within any of the affected ranges: Server 2012 (all), 2016 <= 10.0.14393.8519, 2019 < 10.0.17763.7919, 2022 < 10.0.20348.4294, 2022 23h2 < 10.0.25398.1913, or 2025 <= 10.0.26100.6899
-
Locate ADFS trace and debug log filesCheck the ADFS Tracing folder (default location: %ProgramData%\Microsoft\ADFS\Tracing) and review Event Viewer logs under 'Applications and Services Logs' > 'ADFS Tracing'. Use 'Get-ChildItem -Path "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\ADFS" -Recurse -Filter "*.log"' to find all ADFS log filesAffected if Log files exist and contain sensitive information that should not have been recorded (such as passwords, tokens, or credentials)
-
Inspect log content for sensitive data exposureOpen ADFS log files and search for patterns indicating sensitive data was logged. Look for entries containing keywords like 'password', 'secret', 'credential', 'token', or similar. Use 'Select-String -Path "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\ADFS\Tracing\*.log" -Pattern "password|secret|token"' to scan for sensitive stringsAffected if Logs contain any sensitive information such as passwords, secrets, tokens, or credentials that should not have been written to disk
A server is affected if it runs ADFS, has a vulnerable Windows Server version, and has ADFS logs containing sensitive information that should not have been recorded
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 · scoped10.0.17763.791910.0.20348.429410.0.25398.1913
Review ADFS logging configurations to identify and remove or mask sensitive information from log outputs, implement log scrubbing for sensitive fields, and ensure proper file permissions on log directories.
Apply Microsoft security patches (KB articles) from Windows Update to reach the fixed build versions listed in the MSRC advisory
- Check current Windows Server build version by running 'winver' or 'systeminfo' in Command Prompt
- Identify the affected Windows Server version (2012, 2016, 2019, 2022, or 2025)
- Apply the latest Windows security updates via Windows Update or your organization's patch management system
- Verify the update installed successfully by checking the build number matches or exceeds: Windows Server 2016: 10.0.14393.8520 or later | Windows Server 2019: 10.0.17763.7920 or later | Windows Server 2022: 10.0.20348.4295 or later | Windows Server 2022 23h2: 10.0.25398.1914 or later | Windows Server 2025: 10.0.26100.6900 or later
- Review ADFS log files after patching to confirm sensitive information is no longer being logged
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59258 — 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-2025-59258 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