CVE Tools

CVE-2025-59347

Dragonfly Manager makes requests to external endpoints with disabled TLS authentication

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 6th percentile. A vendor fix is available.

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD, GitHub

What to do

The vendor has published a fix. Version details are below where the sources state them.

What it is

From the CVE record

Dragonfly is an open source P2P-based file distribution and image acceleration system. Prior to 2.1.0, The Manager disables TLS certificate verification in HTTP clients. The clients are not configurable, so users have no way to re-enable the verification. A Manager processes dozens of preheat jobs. An adversary performs a network-level Man-in-the-Middle attack, providing invalid data to the Manager. The Manager preheats with the wrong data, which later causes a denial of service and file integrity problems. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.1.0.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS6th
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.2% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 6th percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

5 events over 1 day, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Patch availablerecord updated
  2. Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped

Affected products

Technical detail

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

Scored 6.5 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
  • Attack Complexity HighRequires specific conditions like a race condition or non-default configuration
  • Privileges Required NoneNo authentication required — anyone can exploit this
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope UnchangedImpact is limited to the vulnerable component itself

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality NoneNo confidentiality impact
  • Integrity LowData modification is possible but limited in scope or consequence
  • Availability HighTotal denial of service — the component is completely unavailable

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Go, not every advisory.

We use analytics cookies to see which pages and articles actually help people. Decline and none of them run — the site works the same. What we store