CVE-2025-10216VulnerabilityPublished 10 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10216: GrandNode · Race Condition

Affects GrandNodeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.1 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.1Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GrandNode	Affected =2.0 =2.1 =2.2 =2.3.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Implement application-level locking or synchronization mechanisms around voucher code validation and redemption to prevent concurrent processing issues. 2. Introduce server-side checks to ensure voucher codes cannot be redeemed multiple times simultaneously or beyond allowed limits. 3. Monitor transaction logs for anomalies such as rapid multiple redemptions of the same voucher code. 4. If possible, upgrade to a version of GrandNode that addresses this issue once available or apply community patches if any exist. 5. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious patterns targeting voucher parameters. 6. Conduct thorough code reviews and penetration testing focusing on concurrency and race conditions in the checkout and voucher handling modules. 7. Educate development teams about secure coding practices related to concurrency and race conditions. 8. Consider temporarily disabling gift voucher functionality if exploitation risk is deemed unacceptable until a fix is available.

Description

A vulnerability was detected in GrandNode up to 2.3.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /checkout/ConfirmOrder/ of the component Voucher Handler. The manipulation of the argument giftvouchercouponcode results in race condition. The attack may be launched remotely. The attack requires a high level of complexity. The exploitability is regarded as difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations using GrandNode as their e-commerce platform, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized voucher redemption or manipulation, resulting in financial losses and potential reputational damage. Although the severity is low and exploitation is difficult, attackers targeting online retailers could attempt to exploit this race condition to gain improper discounts or disrupt checkout processes. This could affect customer trust and lead to chargebacks or increased operational costs. Additionally, if attackers chain this vulnerability with others, it might escalate impact. The lack of vendor response and patches means organizations must proactively assess and mitigate the risk. Given the increasing reliance on e-commerce in Europe, especially post-pandemic, even low-severity vulnerabilities in payment or discount mechanisms warrant attention to maintain business continuity and customer confidence.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…