CVE-2025-0111 : Detail

CVE-2025-0111

7.1
/
High
A04-Insecure DesignA03-Injection
2.94%V3
Network
2025-02-12
20h58 +00:00
2025-02-21
04h56 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications for a CVE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CVE.
Notifications manage

CVE Descriptions

PAN-OS: Authenticated File Read Vulnerability in the Management Web Interface

An authenticated file read vulnerability in the Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS software enables an authenticated attacker with network access to the management web interface to read files on the PAN-OS filesystem that are readable by the “nobody” user. You can greatly reduce the risk of this issue by restricting access to the management web interface to only trusted internal IP addresses according to our recommended best practices deployment guidelines https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/community-blogs/tips-amp-tricks-how-to-secure-the-management-access-of-your-palo/ba-p/464431 . This issue does not affect Cloud NGFW or Prisma Access software.

CVE Solutions

Version Minor Version Suggested Solution PAN-OS 10.1 10.1.0 through 10.1.14 Upgrade to 10.1.14-h9 or later PAN-OS 10.2 10.2.0 through 10.2.13 Upgrade to 10.2.13-h3 or later  10.2.7Upgrade to 10.2.7-h24 or 10.2.13-h3 or later 10.2.8Upgrade to 10.2.8-h21 or 10.2.13-h3 or later 10.2.9Upgrade to 10.2.9-h21 or 10.2.13-h3 or later 10.2.10Upgrade to 10.2.10-h14 or 10.2.13-h3 or later 10.2.11Upgrade to 10.2.11-h12 or 10.2.13-h3 or later  10.2.12Upgrade to 10.2.12-h6 or 10.2.13-h3 or later PAN-OS 11.0 (EoL) Upgrade to a supported fixed versionPAN-OS 11.1 11.1.0 through 11.1.6 Upgrade to 11.1.6-h1 or later  11.1.2Upgrade to 11.1.2-h18 or 11.1.6-h1 or later PAN-OS 11.2 11.2.0 through 11.2.4 Upgrade to 11.2.4-h4 or laterNote: PAN-OS 11.0 reached end of life (EoL) on November 17, 2024. No additional fixes are planned for this release.

CVE Informations

Related Weaknesses

CWE-ID Weakness Name Source
CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
CWE-610 Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere
The product uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.

Metrics

Metrics Score Severity CVSS Vector Source
V4.0 7.1 HIGH CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Red

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

None

The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Negligible

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Integrity Impact

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Availability Impact

None

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

Automatable

The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes.

No

Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation.

Recovery

Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed.

User

The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed.

Value Density

Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated:

Concentrated

The vulnerable system is rich in resources. Heuristically, such systems are often the direct responsibility of “system operators” rather than users. An example of Concentrated (think: broad) Value Density would be an attack on a central email server.

Vulnerability Response Effort

The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure.

Moderate

The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update.

Provider Urgency

Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories.

Red

Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having the highest urgency.
V4.0 5.9 MEDIUM CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/AU:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

Present

The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

High

The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Negligible

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Integrity Impact

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Availability Impact

None

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

Automatable

The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes.

No

Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation.

Recovery

Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed.

User

The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed.

Value Density

Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated:

Concentrated

The vulnerable system is rich in resources. Heuristically, such systems are often the direct responsibility of “system operators” rather than users. An example of Concentrated (think: broad) Value Density would be an attack on a central email server.

Vulnerability Response Effort

The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure.

Moderate

The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update.

Provider Urgency

Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories.

Amber

Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having a moderate urgency.
V3.1 6.5 MEDIUM CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

None

There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

 [email protected]

CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities)

Vulnerability name : Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS File Read Vulnerability

Required action : Apply mitigations per vendor instructions or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Known To Be Used in Ransomware Campaigns : Unknown

Added : 2025-02-19 23h00 +00:00

Action is due : 2025-03-12 23h00 +00:00

Important information
This CVE is identified as vulnerable and poses an active threat, according to the Catalog of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (CISA KEV). The CISA has listed this vulnerability as actively exploited by cybercriminals, emphasizing the importance of taking immediate action to address this flaw. It is imperative to prioritize the update and remediation of this CVE to protect systems against potential cyberattacks.

EPSS

EPSS is a scoring model that predicts the likelihood of a vulnerability being exploited.

EPSS Score

The EPSS model produces a probability score between 0 and 1 (0 and 100%). The higher the score, the greater the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited.

EPSS Percentile

The percentile is used to rank CVE according to their EPSS score. For example, a CVE in the 95th percentile according to its EPSS score is more likely to be exploited than 95% of other CVE. Thus, the percentile is used to compare the EPSS score of a CVE with that of other CVE.
EPSS First.org

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 10.1.0 To (excluding) 10.1.14

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 10.2.0 To (excluding) 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 10.2.10 To (excluding) 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 11.0.0 To (excluding) 11.1.6

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version From (including) 11.2.0 To (excluding) 11.2.4

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.1.14

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.1.14

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.1.14

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.1.14

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.1.14

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.7

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.8

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.9

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.12

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.13

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.13

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 10.2.13

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 11.1.6

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 11.2.4

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 11.2.4

Paloaltonetworks>>Pan-os >> Version 11.2.4

References