CVE-2025-10368VulnerabilityPublished 13 Sep 2025Updated 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10368: MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID · Cross Site Scripting

Affects MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFIDSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/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: Low
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: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
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 13 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
MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID	Affected =2.0 =2.1 =2.2 =2.3 =2.4 =2.5 =2.6 =2.7 =2.8.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement several practical mitigations: 1) Restrict network access to the RPi-Jukebox-RFID web interface by using firewalls or network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted users only. 2) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) capable of detecting and blocking XSS attack patterns targeting the manageFilesFolders.php endpoint. 3) Educate users about the risks of interacting with suspicious links or inputs within the device's web interface to reduce the likelihood of successful social engineering. 4) If possible, review and sanitize inputs in the manageFilesFolders.php file by applying custom patches or filters to neutralize malicious scripts. 5) Monitor device logs and network traffic for unusual activity indicative of exploitation attempts. 6) Consider isolating the device on a separate VLAN or network segment to contain potential compromise. 7) Regularly check for vendor updates or community patches addressing this vulnerability. 8) As a longer-term solution, evaluate alternative software solutions or updated versions that address this vulnerability once available.

Description

A vulnerability was found in MiczFlor RPi-Jukebox-RFID up to 2.8.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /htdocs/manageFilesFolders.php. Performing manipulation results in cross site scripting. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the deployment scale and criticality of the RPi-Jukebox-RFID system within their infrastructure. Since this software is primarily used for media playback on Raspberry Pi devices, its presence in corporate or critical infrastructure environments is likely limited. However, organizations using these devices in public-facing or shared environments (e.g., educational institutions, libraries, community centers) could face risks of session hijacking, unauthorized content manipulation, or social engineering attacks via the XSS vulnerability. The presence of a public exploit increases the likelihood of opportunistic attacks, especially in environments where the device is accessible over the network and users interact with the web interface. While the direct impact on confidentiality and integrity is moderate, the vulnerability could be leveraged as a foothold for further attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities or misconfigurations. The lack of vendor response and absence of official patches means organizations must rely on alternative mitigation strategies. Overall, the threat is more relevant to smaller-scale or niche deployments rather than large enterprise systems, but the risk should not be dismissed in environments where these devices are accessible and used by multiple users.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Sep 2025, 00:37 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats