What is CVE-2025-62593?

CVE-2025-62593 is Ray is vulnerable to RCE via Safari & Firefox Browsers through DNS Rebinding Attack. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-94 Code Injection; CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Yes: CISA KEV signal present. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

Is there a public exploit?

4 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2025-62593 using CVSS 8.8, EPSS 17%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

CISA KEVhighRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2025-62593

CVE-2025-62593 — Ray is vulnerable to RCE via Safari & Firefox Browsers through DNS Rebinding Attack

Q: Is it in CISA KEV?

Yes. The supplied enrichment data lists CVE-2025-62593 in CISA KEV with required action: Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Ray is an AI compute engine. Prior to version 2.52.0, developers working with Ray as a development tool can be exploited via a critical RCE vulnerability exploitable via Firefox and Safari. This vulnerability is due to an insufficient guard against browser-based attacks, as the current defense uses the User-Agent header starting with the string "Mozilla" as a defense mechanism. This defense is insufficient as the fetch specification allows the User-Agent header to be modified. Combined with a DNS rebinding attack against the browser, and this vulnerability is exploitable against a developer running Ray who inadvertently visits a malicious website, or is served a malicious advertisement (malvertising). This issue has been patched in version 2.52.0.

Published Nov 26, 2025Updated Aug 18, 2026Sources: NVD, ray-project (CNA), CISA, FIRST EPSS, Red Hat (VEX), SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Confirmed

CISA KEV, listed Aug 17, 2026

EPSS

17%

ahead of 97% of scored CVEs

Affects

ray-project

ray

CVSS base

8.8

high · 2 sources

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

Active

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

Yes

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade ray to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

CISA required action

Apply mitigations in accordance with vendor instructions, ensuring compliance with CISA’s BOD 26-04 Prioritizing Security Updates Based on Risk (see URL in Notes) guidance and CISA’s “Forensics Triage Requirements” (see URL in Notes). Follow applicable BOD 26-04 guidance for cloud services or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Stakeholders are responsible for evaluating each asset's internet exposure and ensuring adherence to BOD 26-04 patching guidelines.

Federal deadline Aug 20, 2026 — passed 29 days ago

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2025-62593

fixed49affected1not affected628

vendor_fix: For more information visit https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23080

vendor_fix: For more information visit https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23204

vendor_fix: For more information visit https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23078

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
ray-project	ray	< 2.52.0	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
8.8	CVSS 3.1	high	2.8	5.9	NVD, Red Hat (VEX)
9.4	CVSS 4.0	critical	—	—	ray-project (CNA)

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Bypass Protection Mechanism
Read Application Data
Modify Application Data

Mitigation: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]

CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Bypass Protection Mechanism
Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Hide Activities

Mitigation: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-94Code Injection
CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-77 · Manipulating User-Controlled VariablesCAPEC-242 · Code InjectionCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

T1027.006Obfuscated Files or Information: HTML Smuggling
T1027.009Obfuscated Files or Information: Embedded Payloads
T1564.009Hide Artifacts: Resource Forking

CISA KEV details

CISA lists a CVE here once it has evidence of exploitation against real targets.

CISAThat month →

Listed

Aug 17, 2026

Federal deadline

Aug 20, 2026

passed 29 days ago

Ransomware use

Unknown

CISA records ransomware use only for campaigns it has confirmed, so “Unknown” means unrecorded, not ruled out. The deadline binds US federal agencies; for everyone else it is a date to argue against.

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1 of the 3 sampled are weaponized

Exploit entries

Exploit-DB and CTI exploit indexes

Social mentions

Posts naming this CVE. Attention, not evidence of exploitation — it spikes on disclosure and decays whether or not anything is exploited.

35 more posts on this CVEShowing 5 of 40 · Who is discussing this CVE, and how loudlyUnlock free

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable ray.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 4 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSEDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Cve is exploited Boreas37/CVE-2025-62593-PoC
Aug 19, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.8 (AV:N)
Aug 18, 2026 · NVD
Added to CISA KEV catalog
Aug 17, 2026 · CISA
2025
Initial · CVE published
Nov 26, 2025 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Nov 26, 2025 · SOCRadar CTI

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

14×SvrsNov 27, 2025 – Aug 28, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
11×TweetsNov 27, 2025 – Aug 25, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
3×Github ReposNov 27, 2025 – Aug 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
3×ModifiedNov 28, 2025 – Aug 17, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
1×3 times mentioned on 3 Telegram channelsAug 18, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
1×CVE appeared in the Cve Trends.Nov 27, 2025 · SOCRadar CTI

References

15 on the record

github.com/ray-project/ray/commit/70e7c72780bdec075dba6cad1afe0832772bfe09
Patch, Mitre, NIST, Vendor Advisory
github.com/ray-project/ray/security/advisories/GHSA-q279-jhrf-cc6v
Exploit, Patch, Vendor Advisory, Mitre, NIST, GITHUB
www.bitsight.com/blog/rondodox-botnet-infrastructure-analysis
Third Party Advisory, NIST
www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2025-62593
US Government Resource, NIST
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23080
Vendor Advisory
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23204
Vendor Advisory
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:23078
Vendor Advisory
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2026:3461
Vendor Advisory

Coverage

18 stories from the feeds we poll

13 more reports on this CVEShowing 5 of 18 · Vendor research and security press coverageUnlock free

Elsewhere on this site

ray-projectevery CVE for this vendor
August 2026what else CISA listed
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-94other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-62593 is Ray is vulnerable to RCE via Safari & Firefox Browsers through DNS Rebinding Attack, a high vulnerability affecting ray from ray-project. The current evidence lists it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Yes: CISA KEV signal present. Public exploit evidence is: 4 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 8.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 17% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.