CVE-2025-62593

Ray is vulnerable to RCE via Safari & Firefox Browsers through DNS Rebinding Attack

Actively exploited (CISA KEV) Critical 9.4 CVSS 4.0

Description

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.

Description as published by the source, in English.

Key facts

Published: 2025-11-26
Last modified: 2026-08-18
Assigned by: GitHub_M
CVSS vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H
Scored by: CVE Program
Probability of exploitation: 0.4 % higher than 30 % of all known vulnerabilities
EPSS, next 30 days, model v2026.06.15
Fix available: Not registered in the sources

Actively exploited

CISA added this vulnerability to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 2026-08-17, with a remediation deadline of 2026-08-20 for US federal agencies.

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.

Affected products

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
ray-project	ray	< 2.52.0	Affected

Weakness type

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or b…

Attack techniques

Derived through the weakness type: CVE to CWE to CAPEC to ATT&CK. This shows which techniques the weakness class is historically used for. It does not assert that this vulnerability has been exploited that way.

T1027.006: HTML Smuggling stealth
T1027.009: Embedded Payloads stealth
T1564.009: Resource Forking stealth

References

https://github.com/ray-project/ray/security/advisories/GHSA-q279-jhrf-cc6v x_refsource_CONFIRM
https://github.com/ray-project/ray/commit/70e7c72780bdec075dba6cad1afe0832772bfe09 x_refsource_MISC

Related at Berigo

Articles

A malicious web page can run commands on machines running Ray Mentions this CVE 2026-08-18
On 17 August 2026 CISA added CVE-2025-62593 to its catalog of known exploited vulnerabilities. The flaw sits in the Ray compute engine, and lets a ma…

Does this affect you?

A vulnerability matters only if you run the product, in an affected version, somewhere an attacker can reach.

Check your asset list Browse all vulnerabilities

Sources and freshness

CVE

What it is: A reference number naming one specific vulnerability, for example CVE-2024-9474.
What it tells you: Which vulnerability we are talking about, and in which product.
What it does NOT tell you: Nothing about how serious it is, whether anyone is exploiting it, or whether it concerns you.
Why it matters: Without a shared number, vendor, authority and tooling cannot discuss the same flaw.
Used with the others: The number is the key. NVD, KEV and EPSS all describe the same CVE.

NVD CWE CISA KEV EPSS

How to read this together

No single value should be used on its own. A high CVSS score does not mean a vulnerability is being exploited, and a low one does not mean it is harmless. The four sources answer four different questions.

CVE names the specific vulnerability.
NVD adds severity and technical detail about it.
CWE describes the type of mistake behind it.
CISA KEV shows that it is already being exploited.
EPSS estimates how likely exploitation is soon.

The order that decides what is urgent

Do you actually have the product?
Is the version you run affected?
Is it listed in CISA KEV?
Does it have a high EPSS score?
Is the system reachable from the internet or from others?
How important is the system to the business?
Are there compensating controls already in place?

The first two questions are not about the vulnerability at all. They are about you, and they remove most of the list before you start.

A short example

Fix this week

CVSS 6,5 (medium)

In CISA KEV: yes
EPSS: 94 per cent
A firewall facing the internet

Can be scheduled

CVSS 9,8 (critical)

In CISA KEV: no
EPSS: 0,04 per cent
A test server with no internet access

Sorted by CVSS alone, the one on the right comes first. It is the more serious flaw in theory. But the one on the left is being used against real organisations right now, and it sits where an attacker can reach it. That is the one to fix first.

The critical one still has to be fixed. It just does not have to be fixed today.

This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD. CVE and the CVE logo are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation; CVE records are used under the CVE Terms of Use. CWE is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation, used per the CWE Terms of Use. KEV data from CISA (CC0). Exploitation probability from EPSS, a FIRST.org project. Open-source package data from OSV and the GitHub Advisory Database (CC-BY 4.0).

Scores and vectors are shown as published by the sources. The ordering of results is Berigo's own editorial assessment, described on the search page, and is not NVD data. An empty result never means a system is safe.