CVE-2025-6386
CVE-2025-6386 — Timing Attack Vulnerability in parisneo/lollms
The parisneo/lollms repository is affected by a timing attack vulnerability in the `authenticate_user` function within the `lollms_authentication.py` file. This vulnerability allows attackers to enumerate valid usernames and guess passwords incrementally by analyzing response time differences. The affected version is the latest, and the issue is resolved in version 20.1. The vulnerability arises from the use of Python's default string equality operator for password comparison, which compares characters sequentially and exits on the first mismatch, leading to variable response times based on the number of matching initial characters.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, @huntr_ai
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
7.5
HIGH
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.0 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-203
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /lollms.
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
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.