CVE-2025-64103
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 · uneditedStarting from 2.53.6, 2.54.3, and 2.55.0, Zitadel only required multi factor authentication in case the login policy has either enabled requireMFA or requireMFAForLocalUsers. If a user has set up MFA without this requirement, Zitadel would consider single factor auhtenticated sessions as valid as well and not require multiple factors. Bypassing second authentication factors weakens multifactor authentication and enables attackers to bypass the more secure factor. An attacker can target the TOTP code alone, only six digits, bypassing password verification entirely and potentially compromising accounts with 2FA enabled. 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 versions 2.53.6+, 2.54.3+, and 2.55.0+ have a logic flaw where MFA is only enforced if the login policy explicitly requires it via requireMFA or requireMFAForLocalUsers. Users who voluntarily set up MFA without policy enforcement can be authenticated using only the TOTP code (6 digits), completely bypassing password verification. This allows attackers to compromise 2FA-enabled accounts by targeting only the second factor.
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>= 2.53.6, <= 2.53.9>= 2.54.3, <= 2.54.10>= 2.55.0, < 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.
-
Check Zitadel versionAccess the Zitadel admin console or use the CLI 'zitadel admin' to retrieve the server version. Alternatively, query the /admin/v1/healthz endpoint if exposed.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 2.53.6 to 2.53.9, 2.54.3 to 2.54.10, 2.55.0 to 2.71.17, 3.0.0 to 3.4.2, or 4.0.0 to 4.5.x.
-
Identify login policiesQuery the Zitadel API or admin console to list all login policies in the instance. Note the policy ID and scope for each.Affected if Multiple login policies exist (including default and custom scoped policies).
-
Check MFA enforcement in login policiesFor each login policy, inspect the 'requireMFA' and 'requireMFAForLocalUsers' settings. These fields should be present in the policy object and set to a value other than 'MFA_UNSPECIFIED' or 'MFA_NOT_SET' if enforcement is enabled.Affected if Any login policy has 'requireMFA' or 'requireMFAForLocalUsers' set to 'MFA_UNSPECIFIED', 'MFA_NOT_SET', or is absent/null, meaning MFA is not enforced by policy.
-
Identify users with voluntary MFA enrollmentQuery user accounts to find those with MFA factors enrolled (specifically TOTP). Cross-reference with the login policies applied to those users.Affected if Users exist who have TOTP (or other MFA factor) enrolled as a second factor, but the login policy governing their authentication does not enforce MFA.
You are affected if your Zitadel version is within the vulnerable ranges AND you have login policies that do not enforce MFA while users have voluntarily enrolled in MFA, allowing passwordless second-factor-only authentication.
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. After upgrading, review and configure login policies to enforce MFA as needed.
Upgrade to 2.71.18 (for 2.x), 3.4.3 (for 3.x), or 4.6.0 (for 4.x) depending on your current major version branch
- Identify the currently running Zitadel version (2.x, 3.x, or 4.x branch)
- For Zitadel 2.x installations: Upgrade to version 2.71.18
- For Zitadel 3.x installations: Upgrade to version 3.4.3
- For Zitadel 4.x installations: Upgrade to version 4.6.0
- Review release notes for your target version for any migration or configuration changes
- Stop the Zitadel service before upgrade
- Apply the upgrade following standard Zitadel upgrade procedures
- Restart the Zitadel service and verify authentication behavior
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64103 — 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-2025-64103 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