CVE-2025-64102
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 · uneditedZitadel is open-source identity infrastructure software. Prior to 4.6.0, 3.4.3, and 2.71.18, an attacker can perform an online brute-force attack on OTP, TOTP, and passwords. While Zitadel allows preventing online brute force attacks in scenarios like TOTP, Email OTP, or passwords using a lockout mechanism. The mechanism is not enabled by default and can cause a denial of service for the corresponding user if enabled. Additionally, the mitigation strategies were not fully implemented in the more recent resource-based APIs. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.6.0, 3.4.3, and 2.71.18.
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 confidenceZitadel prior to versions 4.6.0, 3.4.3, and 2.71.18 contains a critical authentication weakness allowing online brute-force attacks against OTP, TOTP, and password authentication. While Zitadel includes a lockout mechanism to prevent such attacks, it is not enabled by default, and when enabled can cause denial-of-service for affected users. Additionally, mitigation strategies were not fully implemented in newer resource-based APIs.
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< 2.71.18>= 3.0.0, < 3.4.3>= 4.0.0, < 4.6.0CVSS 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 Zitadel versionCheck your deployed Zitadel version by reviewing the Helm chart, Docker image tag, or binary version (e.g., `zitadel version` or check the startup logs)Affected if The installed version is less than 2.71.18, or between 3.0.0 and 3.4.3, or between 4.0.0 and 4.6.0
-
Locate authentication configurationFind the Zitadel configuration file or Helm values file used in your deployment; look for security or authentication-related settingsAffected if No lockout or brute-force protection settings are defined in your configuration
-
Verify lockout mechanism statusInspect your Zitadel configuration for `lockout`, `max_attempts`, or similar settings; check if a lockout policy is defined and enabled in the Zitadel admin console or via APIAffected if The lockout mechanism is not explicitly enabled or configured in your deployment
-
Inspect resource-based API configsReview API configuration for authentication endpoints (OTP, TOTP, password) to verify rate limiting or attempt throttling is applied; check Zitadel YAML or JSON configuration files for rate limit settingsAffected if Resource-based APIs for authentication lack rate limiting or brute-force protection controls
You are affected if your Zitadel version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND the built-in lockout mechanism or equivalent brute-force protection is not enabled in your configuration.
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 · scoped2.71.183.4.34.6.0
Upgrade Zitadel to version 4.6.0, 3.4.3, or 2.71.18 or later. After upgrading, review and properly configure the lockout mechanism while understanding its potential impact on user availability.
2.71.18 (for 2.x branches), 3.4.3 (for 3.x branches), or 4.6.0 (for 4.x branches)
- Identify the currently running Zitadel version using 'zitadel version' or checking the deployment configuration
- Determine which major version branch you are on (2.x, 3.x, or 4.x) from the version output
- If on 2.x branch: Plan upgrade to version 2.71.18 or later
- If on 3.x branch: Plan upgrade to version 3.4.3 or later
- If on 4.x branch: Plan upgrade to version 4.6.0 or later
- Execute the upgrade following standard Zitadel upgrade procedures for your deployment method
- After upgrading, verify the installation using 'zitadel version' to confirm the patched version is running
- Review authentication security settings in Zitadel admin console to ensure lockout mechanisms are properly configured
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-2025-64102 — 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-2025-64102 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