Security Bulletin: IBM Automation Decision Services for April 2025 - Multiple CVEs addressed

Vulnerability Details

CVEID:   CVE-2025-22870
DESCRIPTION:   Matching of hosts against proxy patterns can improperly treat an IPv6 zone ID as a hostname component. For example, when the NO_PROXY environment variable is set to "*.example.com", a request to "[::1%25.example.com]:80` will incorrectly match and not be proxied.
CWE:   CWE-115: Misinterpretation of Input
CVSS Source:   CISA ADP
CVSS Base score:   4.4
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-56201
DESCRIPTION:   Jinja is an extensible templating engine. In versions on the 3.x branch prior to 3.1.5, a bug in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker that controls both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, regardless of if Jinja's sandbox is used. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control both the filename and the contents of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates where the template author can also choose the template filename. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.5.
CWE:   CWE-150: Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences
CVSS Source:   CISA ADP
CVSS Base score:   8.8
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-56326
DESCRIPTION:   Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Prior to 3.1.5, An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.5.
CWE:   CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure
CVSS Source:   CISA ADP
CVSS Base score:   7.8
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2025-27516
DESCRIPTION:   Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.
CWE:   CWE-1336: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
CVSS Source:   security-advisories@github.com
CVSS Base score:   5.4
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-31141
DESCRIPTION:   Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties, Improper Privilege Management vulnerability in Apache Kafka Clients. Apache Kafka Clients accept configuration data for customizing behavior, and includes ConfigProvider plugins in order to manipulate these configurations. Apache Kafka also provides FileConfigProvider, DirectoryConfigProvider, and EnvVarConfigProvider implementations which include the ability to read from disk or environment variables. In applications where Apache Kafka Clients configurations can be specified by an untrusted party, attackers may use these ConfigProviders to read arbitrary contents of the disk and environment variables. In particular, this flaw may be used in Apache Kafka Connect to escalate from REST API access to filesystem/environment access, which may be undesirable in certain environments, including SaaS products. This issue affects Apache Kafka Clients: from 2.3.0 through 3.5.2, 3.6.2, 3.7.0. Users with affected applications are recommended to upgrade kafka-clients to version >=3.8.0, and set the JVM system property "org.apache.kafka.automatic.config.providers=none". Users of Kafka Connect with one of the listed ConfigProvider implementations specified in their worker config are also recommended to add appropriate "allowlist.pattern" and "allowed.paths" to restrict their operation to appropriate bounds. For users of Kafka Clients or Kafka Connect in environments that trust users with disk and environment variable access, it is not recommended to set the system property. For users of the Kafka Broker, Kafka MirrorMaker 2.0, Kafka Streams, and Kafka command-line tools, it is not recommended to set the system property.
CWE:   CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   6.8
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N)

CVEID:   CVE-2025-27152
DESCRIPTION:   axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and node.js. The issue occurs when passing absolute URLs rather than protocol-relative URLs to axios. Even if ⁠baseURL is set, axios sends the request to the specified absolute URL, potentially causing SSRF and credential leakage. This issue impacts both server-side and client-side usage of axios. This issue is fixed in 1.8.2.
CWE:   CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVSS Source:   IBM
CVSS Base score:   7.5
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N)

CVEID:   CVE-2022-2794
DESCRIPTION:   Certain HP PageWide Pro Printers may be vulnerable to a potential denial of service attack.
CWE:   CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   5.3
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L)

CVEID:   CVE-2022-40735
DESCRIPTION:   The Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Protocol allows use of long exponents that arguably make certain calculations unnecessarily expensive, because the 1996 van Oorschot and Wiener paper found that "(appropriately) short exponents" can be used when there are adequate subgroup constraints, and these short exponents can lead to less expensive calculations than for long exponents. This issue is different from CVE-2002-20001 because it is based on an observation about exponent size, rather than an observation about numbers that are not public keys. The specific situations in which calculation expense would constitute a server-side vulnerability depend on the protocol (e.g., TLS, SSH, or IKE) and the DHE implementation details. In general, there might be an availability concern because of server-side resource consumption from DHE modular-exponentiation calculations. Finally, it is possible for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability and CVE-2002-20001 together.
CWE:   CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   7.5
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2023-5678
DESCRIPTION:   Issue summary: Generating excessively long X9.42 DH keys or checking excessively long X9.42 DH keys or parameters may be very slow. Impact summary: Applications that use the functions DH_generate_key() to generate an X9.42 DH key may experience long delays. Likewise, applications that use DH_check_pub_key(), DH_check_pub_key_ex() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check an X9.42 DH key or X9.42 DH parameters may experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. While DH_check() performs all the necessary checks (as of CVE-2023-3817), DH_check_pub_key() doesn't make any of these checks, and is therefore vulnerable for excessively large P and Q parameters. Likewise, while DH_generate_key() performs a check for an excessively large P, it doesn't check for an excessively large Q. An application that calls DH_generate_key() or DH_check_pub_key() and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. DH_generate_key() and DH_check_pub_key() are also called by a number of other OpenSSL functions. An application calling any of those other functions may similarly be affected. The other functions affected by this are DH_check_pub_key_ex(), EVP_PKEY_public_check(), and EVP_PKEY_generate(). Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey command line application when using the "-pubcheck" option, as well as the OpenSSL genpkey command line application. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are not affected by this issue.
CWE:   CWE-606: Unchecked Input for Loop Condition
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   3.7
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L)

CVEID:   CVE-2023-6129
DESCRIPTION:   Issue summary: The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation contains a bug that might corrupt the internal state of applications running on PowerPC CPU based platforms if the CPU provides vector instructions. Impact summary: If an attacker can influence whether the POLY1305 MAC algorithm is used, the application state might be corrupted with various application dependent consequences. The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation in OpenSSL for PowerPC CPUs restores the contents of vector registers in a different order than they are saved. Thus the contents of some of these vector registers are corrupted when returning to the caller. The vulnerable code is used only on newer PowerPC processors supporting the PowerISA 2.07 instructions. The consequences of this kind of internal application state corruption can be various - from no consequences, if the calling application does not depend on the contents of non-volatile XMM registers at all, to the worst consequences, where the attacker could get complete control of the application process. However unless the compiler uses the vector registers for storing pointers, the most likely consequence, if any, would be an incorrect result of some application dependent calculations or a crash leading to a denial of service. The POLY1305 MAC algorithm is most frequently used as part of the CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD (authenticated encryption with associated data) algorithm. The most common usage of this AEAD cipher is with TLS protocol versions 1.2 and 1.3. If this cipher is enabled on the server a malicious client can influence whether this AEAD cipher is used. This implies that TLS server applications using OpenSSL can be potentially impacted. However we are currently not aware of any concrete application that would be affected by this issue therefore we consider this a Low severity security issue.
CWE:   CWE-440: Expected Behavior Violation
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   5.9
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2023-6237
DESCRIPTION:   Issue summary: Checking excessively long invalid RSA public keys may take a long time. Impact summary: Applications that use the function EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check RSA public keys may experience long delays. Where the key that is being checked has been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. When function EVP_PKEY_public_check() is called on RSA public keys, a computation is done to confirm that the RSA modulus, n, is composite. For valid RSA keys, n is a product of two or more large primes and this computation completes quickly. However, if n is an overly large prime, then this computation would take a long time. An application that calls EVP_PKEY_public_check() and supplies an RSA key obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. The function EVP_PKEY_public_check() is not called from other OpenSSL functions however it is called from the OpenSSL pkey command line application. For that reason that application is also vulnerable if used with the '-pubin' and '-check' options on untrusted data. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are affected by this issue.
CWE:   CWE-606: Unchecked Input for Loop Condition
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   3.1
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-26461
DESCRIPTION:   Kerberos 5 (aka krb5) 1.21.2 contains a memory leak vulnerability in /krb5/src/lib/gssapi/krb5/k5sealv3.c.
CWE:   CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   5.9
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-26462
DESCRIPTION:   Kerberos 5 (aka krb5) 1.21.2 contains a memory leak vulnerability in /krb5/src/kdc/ndr.c.
CWE:   CWE-401: Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
CVSS Source:   NVD
CVSS Base score:   5.5
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-4603
DESCRIPTION:   Issue summary: Checking excessively long DSA keys or parameters may be very slow. Impact summary: Applications that use the functions EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() to check a DSA public key or DSA parameters may experience long delays. Where the key or parameters that are being checked have been obtained from an untrusted source this may lead to a Denial of Service. The functions EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() perform various checks on DSA parameters. Some of those computations take a long time if the modulus (`p` parameter) is too large. Trying to use a very large modulus is slow and OpenSSL will not allow using public keys with a modulus which is over 10,000 bits in length for signature verification. However the key and parameter check functions do not limit the modulus size when performing the checks. An application that calls EVP_PKEY_param_check() or EVP_PKEY_public_check() and supplies a key or parameters obtained from an untrusted source could be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack. These functions are not called by OpenSSL itself on untrusted DSA keys so only applications that directly call these functions may be vulnerable. Also vulnerable are the OpenSSL pkey and pkeyparam command line applications when using the `-check` option. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected by this issue. The OpenSSL 3.0 and 3.1 FIPS providers are affected by this issue.
CWE:   CWE-606: Unchecked Input for Loop Condition
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   3.7
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-5535
DESCRIPTION:   Issue summary: Calling the OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto with an empty supported client protocols buffer may cause a crash or memory contents to be sent to the peer. Impact summary: A buffer overread can have a range of potential consequences such as unexpected application beahviour or a crash. In particular this issue could result in up to 255 bytes of arbitrary private data from memory being sent to the peer leading to a loss of confidentiality. However, only applications that directly call the SSL_select_next_proto function with a 0 length list of supported client protocols are affected by this issue. This would normally never be a valid scenario and is typically not under attacker control but may occur by accident in the case of a configuration or programming error in the calling application. The OpenSSL API function SSL_select_next_proto is typically used by TLS applications that support ALPN (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation) or NPN (Next Protocol Negotiation). NPN is older, was never standardised and is deprecated in favour of ALPN. We believe that ALPN is significantly more widely deployed than NPN. The SSL_select_next_proto function accepts a list of protocols from the server and a list of protocols from the client and returns the first protocol that appears in the server list that also appears in the client list. In the case of no overlap between the two lists it returns the first item in the client list. In either case it will signal whether an overlap between the two lists was found. In the case where SSL_select_next_proto is called with a zero length client list it fails to notice this condition and returns the memory immediately following the client list pointer (and reports that there was no overlap in the lists). This function is typically called from a server side application callback for ALPN or a client side application callback for NPN. In the case of ALPN the list of protocols supplied by the client is guaranteed by libssl to never be zero in length. The list of server protocols comes from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length. In this case if the SSL_select_next_proto function has been called as expected (with the list supplied by the client passed in the client/client_len parameters), then the application will not be vulnerable to this issue. If the application has accidentally been configured with a zero length server list, and has accidentally passed that zero length server list in the client/client_len parameters, and has additionally failed to correctly handle a "no overlap" response (which would normally result in a handshake failure in ALPN) then it will be vulnerable to this problem. In the case of NPN, the protocol permits the client to opportunistically select a protocol when there is no overlap. OpenSSL returns the first client protocol in the no overlap case in support of this. The list of client protocols comes from the application and should never normally be expected to be of zero length. However if the SSL_select_next_proto function is accidentally called with a client_len of 0 then an invalid memory pointer will be returned instead. If the application uses this output as the opportunistic protocol then the loss of confidentiality will occur. This issue has been assessed as Low severity because applications are most likely to be vulnerable if they are using NPN instead of ALPN - but NPN is not widely used. It also requires an application configuration or programming error. Finally, this issue would not typically be under attacker control making active exploitation unlikely. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue. Due to the low severity of this issue we are not issuing new releases of OpenSSL at this time. The fix will be included in the next releases when they become available.
CWE:   CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CVSS Source:   IBM
CVSS Base score:   6.5
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-6119
DESCRIPTION:   Issue summary: Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address resulting in abnormal termination of the application process. Impact summary: Abnormal termination of an application can a cause a denial of service. Applications performing certificate name checks (e.g., TLS clients checking server certificates) may attempt to read an invalid memory address when comparing the expected name with an `otherName` subject alternative name of an X.509 certificate. This may result in an exception that terminates the application program. Note that basic certificate chain validation (signatures, dates, ...) is not affected, the denial of service can occur only when the application also specifies an expected DNS name, Email address or IP address. TLS servers rarely solicit client certificates, and even when they do, they generally don't perform a name check against a reference identifier (expected identity), but rather extract the presented identity after checking the certificate chain. So TLS servers are generally not affected and the severity of the issue is Moderate. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
CWE:   CWE-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')
CVSS Source:   NVD
CVSS Base score:   7.5
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-3596
DESCRIPTION:   RADIUS Protocol under RFC 2865 is susceptible to forgery attacks by a local attacker who can modify any valid Response (Access-Accept, Access-Reject, or Access-Challenge) to any other response using a chosen-prefix collision attack against MD5 Response Authenticator signature.
CWE:   CWE-354: Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
CVSS Source:   NVD
CVSS Base score:   9
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2025-1390
DESCRIPTION:   The PAM module pam_cap.so of libcap configuration supports group names starting with “@”, during actual parsing, configurations not starting with “@” are incorrectly recognized as group names. This may result in nonintended users being granted an inherited capability set, potentially leading to security risks. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to achieve local privilege escalation on systems where /etc/security/capability.conf is used to configure user inherited privileges by constructing specific usernames.
CWE:   CWE-284: Improper Access Control
CVSS Source:   security@openanolis.org
CVSS Base score:   6.1
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-9143
DESCRIPTION:   Issue summary: Use of the low-level GF(2^m) elliptic curve APIs with untrusted explicit values for the field polynomial can lead to out-of-bounds memory reads or writes. Impact summary: Out of bound memory writes can lead to an application crash or even a possibility of a remote code execution, however, in all the protocols involving Elliptic Curve Cryptography that we're aware of, either only "named curves" are supported, or, if explicit curve parameters are supported, they specify an X9.62 encoding of binary (GF(2^m)) curves that can't represent problematic input values. Thus the likelihood of existence of a vulnerable application is low. In particular, the X9.62 encoding is used for ECC keys in X.509 certificates, so problematic inputs cannot occur in the context of processing X.509 certificates. Any problematic use-cases would have to be using an "exotic" curve encoding. The affected APIs include: EC_GROUP_new_curve_GF2m(), EC_GROUP_new_from_params(), and various supporting BN_GF2m_*() functions. Applications working with "exotic" explicit binary (GF(2^m)) curve parameters, that make it possible to represent invalid field polynomials with a zero constant term, via the above or similar APIs, may terminate abruptly as a result of reading or writing outside of array bounds. Remote code execution cannot easily be ruled out. The FIPS modules in 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue.
CWE:   CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   3.7
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-26458
DESCRIPTION:   Kerberos 5 (aka krb5) 1.21.2 contains a memory leak in /krb5/src/lib/rpc/pmap_rmt.c.
CWE:   CWE-401: Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   5.9
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H)

CVEID:   CVE-2025-0665
DESCRIPTION:   libcurl would wrongly close the same eventfd file descriptor twice when taking down a connection channel after having completed a threaded name resolve.
CWE:   CWE-1341: Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle
CVSS Source:   CISA ADP
CVSS Base score:   9.8
CVSS Vector:   CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

CVEID:   CVE-2023-28319
DESCRIPTION:   A use after free vulnerability exists in curl CWE:   CWE-416: Use After Free
CVSS Source:   IBM X-Force
CVSS Base score:   5.9
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N)

CVEID:   CVE-2024-45337
DESCRIPTION:   Applications and libraries which misuse connection.serverAuthenticate (via callback field ServerConfig.PublicKeyCallback) may be susceptible to an authorization bypass. The documentation for ServerConfig.PublicKeyCallback says that "A call to this function does not guarantee that the key offered is in fact used to authenticate." Specifically, the SSH protocol allows clients to inquire about whether a public key is acceptable before proving control of the corresponding private key. PublicKeyCallback may be called with multiple keys, and the order in which the keys were provided cannot be used to infer which key the client successfully authenticated with, if any. Some applications, which store the key(s) passed to PublicKeyCallback (or derived information) and make security relevant determinations based on it once the connection is established, may make incorrect assumptions. For example, an attacker may send public keys A and B, and then authenticate with A. PublicKeyCallback would be called only twice, first with A and then with B. A vulnerable application may then make authorization decisions based on key B for which the attacker does not actually control the private key. Since this API is widely misused, as a partial mitigation golang.org/x/cry...@v0.31.0 enforces the property that, when successfully authenticating via public key, the last key passed to ServerConfig.PublicKeyCallback will be the key used to authenticate the connection. PublicKeyCallback will now be called multiple times with the same key, if necessary. Note that the client may still not control the last key passed to PublicKeyCallback if the connection is then authenticated with a different method, such as PasswordCallback, KeyboardInteractiveCallback, or NoClientAuth. Users should be using the Extensions field of the Permissions return value from the various authentication callbacks to record data associated with the authentication attempt instead of referencing external state. Once the connection is established the state corresponding to the successful authentication attempt can be retrieved via the ServerConn.Permissions field. Note that some third-party libraries misuse the Permissions type by sharing it across authentication attempts; users of third-party libraries should refer to the relevant projects for guidance.
CVSS Source:   CISA
CVSS Base score:   9.1
CVSS Vector:   (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N)