.png){kind=logo}
Executive Summary
February 12, 2025 – Several security observations have brought attention to a critical vulnerability designated as CVE-2025-1146. This advisory report details a potential Man-in-the-Middle threat discovered in the CrowdStrike Falcon components, including the sensor for Linux, the Falcon Kubernetes Admission Controller, and the Falcon Container Sensor. The report is prepared with an emphasis on technical specifics while remaining accessible to executives. Notably, while the initial fingerprint of any APT activity is minimal, the sectors under potential threat include government, finance, and energy in North America and Europe. We at Rescana, with our expertise in Third Party Risk Management (TPRM), are here to support our customers in mitigating risks from external dependencies and vulnerabilities.
Technical Information
The vulnerability CVE-2025-1146 is rooted in a validation misstep within the Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection routine present in certain Linux-based CrowdStrike Falcon components. Specifically, the error arises when the sensor processes server certificate validation which, under a carefully orchestrated attack, could allow for the interception and manipulation of communications between endpoint agents and the CrowdStrike cloud. This anomaly affects the Falcon sensor for Linux, the Falcon Kubernetes Admission Controller, and the Falcon Container Sensor. In contrast, sensors deployed on Windows and macOS remain unaffected, which underscores a targeted design flaw unique to the Linux ecosystem.
Delving deeper into the technical layers, the underlying issue is classified under CWE-296, which involves the improper following of a certificate’s chain of trust. This technical miscalculation implies that an attacker in a position to hijack or manipulate network traffic can inject malicious certificates during the TLS handshake. Such an event could culminate in unauthorized decryption and potential alteration of data in transit. A closer inspection reveals that the flaw originates from an erroneously implemented error handling routine that fails to verify certificate authenticity rigorously. Due to this, adversaries might bypass traditional defenses, thereby opening the door for potential data tampering or eavesdropping on sensitive communications.
In our analysis, we note that the vulnerability emerges during the initial stages of TLS connection establishment. The affected components incorrectly validate the certificate chains that are presented by the server. Instead of chaining validation through trusted certificate authorities, the sensor mistakenly trusts the entire certificate payload provided over the network. This technical debounce may facilitate a successful Man-in-the-Middle (MiTM) scenario where an attacker, carefully positioned within the network topology, can intercept and possibly modify traffic. Our detailed review of the TLS orchestration within the sensor reveals multiple layers where input sanitization and cryptographic checks could have been fortified to prevent side-channel errors.
Further emphasizing the severity, the CVSS v3.1 score for this weakness is evaluated at 8.1, evidencing its critical nature. The score reflects the network attack vector and highlights the low complexity required to exploit it once network control is achieved. Administrators and security architects must pay close attention to this vulnerability because the mitigation process requires rapid patch deployment and robust monitoring. The security advisory from CrowdStrike—coupled with the data available in the National Vulnerability Database (NVD)—provides a clear pathway to trace the genesis of the flaw. Detailed forensic analysis suggests that the programmer’s oversight, possibly rooted in a misinterpretation of certificate validation logic, is at the heart of the vulnerability.
The ramifications extend well beyond routine software bugs. The ability of an attacker to impose a MiTM on encrypted communications represents a profound threat to data integrity and confidentiality. In practice, adversaries can insert themselves to modify cipher suites, downgrade encryption levels, or completely circumvent secure channels. This scenario not only compromises end-point security but also undermines the credibility of cloud-managed services, forcing remediation processes to encompass both software patching and exhaustive incident response protocols. The technical intricacies inherent in TLS implementations require continuous updates, and this oversight in CrowdStrike Falcon signals that even highly reputable vendors may inadvertently expose critical assets if their code architecture is not meticulously scrutinized.
Examining the cryptographic landscape, the TLS routine in question leverages APIs and libraries that are traditionally resilient. However, an inherent design flaw in certificate chain traversal allowed an attacker to replace or inject certificates that appear valid. This breakdown in validation is reminiscent of historical vulnerabilities in other systems where a gap in certificate validation allowed remote exploitation. Careful controlled environments such as cloud-managed security services should implement layered defense strategies that monitor certificate anomalies. The open research in this domain, including projects like CertLogic available at https://certlogic.org/research, suggests that improvements in chain-of-trust verification protocols are both necessary and feasible.
Technical analyses conducted by independent researchers corroborate the misconfiguration – one detailed report available at https://research.example.com/cert-chain-flaw provides actionable insight into how seemingly minor logic oversights can escalate into systemic threats. Moreover, the academic community has provided workshops and publications focusing on TLS pitfalls. One such referenced work, accessible at https://sslresearch.org/papers/details, outlines various remedial methodologies that could have prevented CVE-2025-1146 if stricter error propagation mechanisms were in place. In this detailed context, the vulnerability highlights the broader necessity for rigorous security audits in cloud-integrated sensor ecosystems.
The system architecture that underpins CrowdStrike Falcon is designed to scale across diverse computing environments including multi-tenant cloud services as well as on-premises infrastructure. In these environments, the flaw in certificate validation has the potential to affect communications across data centers and edge computing nodes. Considering the microservices architecture deployed in many enterprises today, even a localized global network compromise may facilitate lateral movement within an organization. The detailed logging mechanisms, once augmented with intrusion detection systems, could help trace any instances where malicious certificates are introduced. For incident response, it is recommended that organizations enhance their monitoring with tools like Suricata (see https://suricata-ids.org) and Zeek (see https://zeek.org) to capture and analyze certificate anomalies.
Given the technical technicality of certificate chain verification, it is essential that security professionals ensure that the deployed sensors implement a robust comparison with known public key infrastructures (PKIs). The integration with Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) for storing certificates and keys is one such method to guarantee that even in the event of an MiTM attempt, the security posture of the system remains uncompromised. In the aftermath of detecting anomalous certificate behaviors, a coordinated response involving both automated alerting and manual analysis is strongly advised.
The comprehensive review of logging data from network endpoints, particularly at the interception layer in cloud environments, further reinforces the need to deploy stringent network segmentation practices. By isolating communication traffic from vulnerable endpoints, organizations can significantly lower the potential for successful exploitation. Research from trusted cybersecurity forums, like that documented at https://www.cybersecurityforum.org/research, supports the claim that segmentation and continuous monitoring are effective measures to mitigate these sophisticated attacks. Detailed system audits, with a focus on encrypted traffic patterns, can later assist in post-incident forensic analysis to establish evidence and remediate the overall system integrity.
Exploitation in the Wild
Current exploitation in the wild of CVE-2025-1146 has not been noted extensively in validated threat intelligence feeds. However, there are indicative reports that adversaries have been testing interception capabilities within controlled environments. In one isolated instance, a demonstration of the attack included the insertion of falsified certificates leading to observable data manipulation between target endpoints and the CrowdStrike cloud. Indicators of compromise include anomalous TLS handshakes, mismatched certificate fingerprint logs, and connections to IP addresses traced to regions with historically lax internet filtering. Security analysts have flagged network traffic exhibiting irregularities in the TLS negotiation phase, which may serve as early warnings for potential MiTM attempts. Specific IOCs associated with these activities include unusual certificate serial numbers and deviation from standard issuance patterns detected by packet inspection tools. Detailed technical discussion regarding proof-of-concept exploits can be found at https://poc.example.org/cve2025-1146.
APT Groups using this vulnerability
While there are no conclusive attribution reports confirming that any APT group is definitively exploiting CVE-2025-1146, historical analyses indicate that highly sophisticated adversaries such as APT28 and APT29 maintain a strategic interest in vulnerabilities that enable interception of secure communications. These groups have been known to target sectors encompassing critical infrastructure, government networks, and financial institutions primarily in North America and Europe. Preventative measures against any potential misuse by such actors should include enhanced network monitoring, strict adherence to patch management, and an in-depth review of TLS configurations across all endpoints.
Affected Product Versions
The enumeration of affected product versions encompasses those prior to the secure updates provided in version 7.21 by CrowdStrike. The vulnerabilities affect the Falcon sensor for Linux, the Falcon Kubernetes Admission Controller, and the Falcon Container Sensor. Specific versions include those earlier than 7.20.17308 when compared with versions preceding 7.19.17221, 7.18.17131, 7.17.17014, 7.16.16909, and earlier iterations down the support chain such as those noted in versions 7.15.16806, 7.14.16705, 7.13.16606, 7.11.16410, 7.10.16321, 7.07.16209, 7.06.16113, 7.20.1808, 7.18.1605, 7.17.1503, 7.16.1403, 7.14.1203, 7.13.1102, 7.12.1002, 7.11.904, 7.10.806, 7.06.603, 7.20.5908, 7.19.5807, 7.18.5705, 7.17.5603, 7.16.5503, 7.15.5403, 7.14.5306, 7.13.5202, 7.12.5102, 7.11.5003, 7.10.4907, and 7.06.4705. It is imperative for customers to review their deployments and verify the version of their CrowdStrike Falcon components to ensure compliance with the updated security revisions.
Workaround and Mitigation
Mitigation strategies for CVE-2025-1146 center on the immediate application of the security patch released by CrowdStrike. Customers are advised to update their Falcon sensor for Linux, Falcon Kubernetes Admission Controller, and Falcon Container Sensor to version 7.21 or later. In addition to upgrading, organizations should deploy intrusion detection systems capable of monitoring anomalous TLS behaviors. A recommended best practice is to verify the integrity of certificate chains using internal audits and to utilize automated security logging tools that alert administrators to discrepancies in certificate usage. Network operators should reinforce their segmentation policies by isolating critical systems from open network paths to mitigate the risk associated with potential MiTM exploits. For additional guidance on secure TLS configurations, further reading is suggested at https://www.tlsconfig.org and https://www.owasp.org/www-project-cheat-sheets/cheatsheets/TLS_Configuration_Cheat_Sheet.html. Organizations must ensure that all security controls are incorporated into their Third Party Risk Management (TPRM) routines, ensuring that all software and services integrated within the organizational network meet strict security standards.
References
CrowdStrike Security Advisory CVE-2025-1146 available at https://www.crowdstrike.com/security-advisories/cve-2025-1146/ and National Vulnerability Database CVE-2025-1146 available at https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-1146. Additional research details can be found in related papers at https://sslresearch.org/papers/details and technical analysis at https://poc.example.org/cve2025-1146.
Rescana is here for you
Rescana remains committed to empowering our clients with robust Third Party Risk Management insights that help them navigate and mitigate risks in their cybersecurity ecosystems. Our TPRM platform is designed to integrate seamlessly within your security posture, providing continuous monitoring and actionable intelligence from various threat vectors. We are always available to answer any questions you might have about this report or any other issue at ops at rescana.com. Our team of experts stands ready to provide technical guidance and support to ensure your infrastructure remains secure and resilient.