CVE-2025-59870
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 · uneditedHCL MyXalytics is affected by improper management of a static JWT signing secret in the web application, where the secret lacks rotation , introducing a security risk
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 confidenceHCL MyXalytics uses a hardcoded, static JWT signing key that is never rotated. If this secret is discovered through code leaks, configuration errors, or other means, attackers can forge valid JWT tokens to impersonate users and bypass authentication entirely.
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= 6.2= 6.3= 6.4= 6.5= 6.6= 6.7CVSS 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.
-
Check MyXalytics installed versionLocate the MyXalytics installation directory and identify the version number from the application metadata, license file, or version manifest. Common locations include the installation root folder or a versioninfo file.Affected if The installed version is 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, or 6.7
-
Locate JWT configuration filesSearch the MyXalytics installation directory and configuration folders for files that contain JWT-related settings. Look for files named jwt, security, auth, or similar. Inspect XML, properties, YAML, or JSON configuration files.Affected if JWT configuration files exist and contain a static signing key
-
Inspect JWT secret for hardcoded valuesOpen the JWT or security configuration file and examine the signing key parameter. Check whether the secret value appears to be a hardcoded static string rather than a reference to an external secrets manager, environment variable, or dynamically generated value.Affected if The JWT signing key is a static string literal and does not reference an external secrets source
-
Verify key rotation mechanismSearch the configuration and deployment scripts for any evidence of secret rotation logic, automated key updates, or integration with a secrets management system. Check if any scheduled tasks or scripts handle JWT key rotation.Affected if No automated key rotation mechanism exists and the same signing key has been in use persistently
If the installed MyXalytics version is 6.2 through 6.7 and the JWT signing key is a hardcoded static value with no rotation mechanism detected, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 the static JWT signing secret with a dynamically generated, securely stored secret (e.g., from a secrets manager or environment variable) and implement automated secret rotation with a mechanism to handle token re-issuance during rotation periods.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59870 — 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-2025-59870 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