Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐹
🐹 Go
Not in CISA KEV
MEDIUM severity

CVE-2025-27093 — sliver

MEDIUMFix: BishopFox/sliver@8e5c5f1

CVE-2025-27093 is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.3) CWE-284 vulnerability in github.com/BishopFox/sliver. A fix is available for github.com/BishopFox/sliver — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Sliver does not restricted traffic between Wireguard clients.

Also known asGHSA-q8j9-34qf-7vq7GO-2025-4079
Published
Oct 28, 2025
Updated
Aug 12, 2026
Affected
2 pkgs
Patched
2 / 2
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Sep 24, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

Proof-of-concept exploit code exists

  • CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2025-27093.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs12th percentile — riskier than 12% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

CVE-2025-27093 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 379,145 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

2 pkgs affected
🐹github.com/BishopFox/sliver🐹github.com/bishopfox/sliver

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

Sliver's custom Wireguard netstack doesn't limit traffic between Wireguard clients, this could lead to:

  1. Leaked/recovered keypair (from a beacon) being used to attack operators.
  2. Port forwardings usable from other implants.

Details

  1. Sliver treat operators' Wireguard config and beacon/session's Wireguard config equally, they both connect to the wireguard listener created from the CLI.

  2. The current netstack implementation does not filter traffic between clients. I think this piece of code handle traffic between clients, from experimental results clients can ping and connect to each other freely, and I didn't see any filtering here either:

File: server\c2\wireguard.go
246: func socketWGWriteEnvelope(connection net.Conn, envelope *sliverpb.Envelope) error {
247: 	data, err := proto.Marshal(envelope)
248: 	if err != nil {
249: 		wgLog.Errorf("Envelope marshaling error: %v", err)
250: 		return err
251: 	}
252: 	dataLengthBuf := new(bytes.Buffer)
253: 	binary.Write(dataLengthBuf, binary.LittleEndian, uint32(len(data)))
254: 	connection.Write(dataLengthBuf.Bytes())
255: 	connection.Write(data)
256: 	return nil
257: }
258: 

  1. The docs says to use a Wireguard clients and operator wg-config to connect to the same WG listener as beacons: https://sliver.sh/docs?name=Port%20Forwarding

  2. If the operator uses official wireguard clients that integrates with the OS's netstack (I'm using the Windows client) then their services are accessible on the wireguard interface's IP address (for example 100.64.0.3) when the services listen on 0.0.0.0 (SSH, RDP, SMB, etc) image

  3. The beacon's wireguard private key can be recovered through a process dump or other forensic techniques.

  4. When a private key is recovered, an attacker can connect to 100.64.0.1:1337 (key exchange listener) to generate new wireguard clients without the operators' knowledge, in that way achieve persistence inside the wireguard network.

PoC

Easy way:

  1. Create 2 operators wireguard config.
  2. Connect them both to the wireguard listener.
  3. From one machine, ping/scan/connect to the other's services like RDP (3389), SSH (22), etc.

Slightly complicated way:

  1. From the operator's machine, connect to the wireguard listener.

  2. On the attacker's machine, run a beacon.

  3. Dump the process

  4. Find the private key, public key, endpoint, etc in the dump file: image image image image

  5. Construct a valid Wireguard config based on the strings found. On the attacker's machine, connect to the Wireguard listener.

  6. Ping/scan/connect to the other's services like RDP (3389), SSH (22), etc.

Impact

The operator's machine is impacted, if their services contain a vulnerability, an attacker can exploit it and gain RCE. If not then it could be used to gather information (Hostname, SSH signature, etc).

Suggestion

  1. Filter traffic between clients with a default-deny policy.
  2. Differentiate between operators and beacons' wireguard config/client
  3. Only allow specific one-way traffic when the operator request to open a Wireguard port forward.

Vulnerable versions

All versions containing wireguard functionality.

Affected Packages

2 total 2 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐹Gogithub.com/BishopFox/sliverall versions1.5.44go get github.com/BishopFox/sliver@v1.5.44
🐹Gogithub.com/bishopfox/sliverall versions1.5.44go get github.com/bishopfox/sliver@v1.5.44

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/BishopFox/sliver, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update github.com/BishopFox/sliver to 1.5.44 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2025-27093 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2025-27093 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to CVE-2025-27093. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary Sliver's custom Wireguard netstack doesn't limit traffic between Wireguard clients, this could lead to: 1. Leaked/recovered keypair (from a beacon) being used to attack operators. 2. Port forwardings usable from other implants. ### Details 1. Sliver treat operators' Wireguard config and beacon/session's Wireguard config equally, they both connect to the wireguard listener created from the CLI. 2. The current netstack implementation does not filter traffic between clients. I think this piece of code handle traffic between clients, from experimental results clients can ping and c
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is CVE-2025-27093 in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds CVE-2025-27093 across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

CVE-2025-27093: sliver RCE (Medium 6.3) | O3 Security