CVE-2025-8863
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 · uneditedYugabyteDB diagnostic information was transmitted over HTTP, which could expose sensitive data during transmission
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 confidenceYugabyteDB was transmitting diagnostic information over unencrypted HTTP connections, allowing potential network attackers to intercept sensitive operational data in transit. This represents a confidentiality breach where diagnostic endpoints lack transport encryption.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 YugabyteDB processes and portsRun 'ps aux | grep yb' or check for processes listening on common YugabyteDB ports (13000 for web UI, 7000/7001 for master, 9000/9100 for tserver)Affected if YugabyteDB processes are running and listening on HTTP (not HTTPS) ports
-
Verify diagnostic endpoint transport encryptionCheck the --use_cassandra_security_config or --use_tls flags in yb-master and yb-tserver startup scripts or configuration files; also check if ports 13000, 7000, 7001 are serving HTTP instead of HTTPSAffected if Diagnostic endpoints are configured to use plain HTTP without TLS encryption
-
Inspect TLS configuration for YugabyteDB servicesReview yb-master.conf and yb-tserver.conf for 'use_tls' or 'certs_dir' settings; check if certificate files exist in the configured directoryAffected if TLS is not enabled (use_tls=false or not set) for the master and tserver services
-
Test network accessibility of diagnostic portsUse 'curl http://<host>:13000' or 'curl http://<host>:7000' to attempt access to diagnostic endpoints; also check with 'netstat -tlnp | grep -E "(13000|7000|7001)"' to confirm listening stateAffected if HTTP requests to diagnostic ports return valid responses, confirming unencrypted access is possible
-
Review YugabyteDB versionRun 'yb-master --version' or 'yb-tserver --version' if available, or check the installed package versionAffected if Installed version falls within the vulnerable range (version without TLS enforcement for diagnostics)
You are affected if YugabyteDB diagnostic endpoints are accessible over unencrypted HTTP connections without TLS/HTTPS configuration enabled.
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 dataEnable TLS/HTTPS for all YugabyteDB diagnostic endpoints and ensure network communication uses encrypted channels.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-8863 — 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-2025-8863 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