CVE-2025-11630VulnerabilityPublished 12 Oct 2025Updated 17 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11630: RainyGao DocSys · Path Traversal

Affects RainyGao DocSysSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% 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:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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 12 Oct 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
RainyGao DocSys	Affected =2.02.0 =2.02.1 =2.02.2 =2.02.3 =2.02.4 =2.02.5 =2.02.6 =2.02.7 =2.02.8 =2.02.9 =2.02.10 =2.02.11 =2.02.12 =2.02.13 =2.02.14 =2.02.15 =2.02.16 =2.02.17 =2.02.18 =2.02.19 =2.02.20 =2.02.21 =2.02.22 =2.02.23 =2.02.24 =2.02.25 =2.02.26 =2.02.27 =2.02.28 =2.02.29 =2.02.30 =2.02.31 =2.02.32 =2.02.33 =2.02.34 =2.02.35 =2.02.36	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediately restrict external access to the /Doc/uploadDoc.do endpoint using network segmentation or firewall rules to limit exposure. 2. Deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block path traversal patterns in HTTP requests targeting the vulnerable parameter. 3. Implement strict input validation and sanitization at the application or proxy level to reject suspicious path arguments. 4. Monitor file system integrity and audit logs for unauthorized file access or modifications, focusing on directories accessible by DocSys. 5. If possible, disable or restrict the updateRealDoc functionality temporarily until a patch is available. 6. Conduct thorough inventory and risk assessment to identify all instances of DocSys in the environment. 7. Engage with the vendor for updates and consider alternative document management solutions if no timely patch is forthcoming. 8. Educate security teams on the vulnerability and ensure incident response plans include scenarios involving path traversal exploitation. 9. Regularly update and patch other system components to reduce overall attack surface and prevent lateral movement. 10. Consider deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect exploitation attempts and anomalous file system activity.

Description

A vulnerability was found in RainyGao DocSys up to 2.02.36. Affected is the function updateRealDoc of the file /Doc/uploadDoc.do of the component File Upload. Performing manipulation of the argument path results in path traversal. The attack can be initiated remotely. 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, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of document management systems. Unauthorized file access or modification could lead to data breaches involving sensitive corporate or personal information, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR), and operational disruptions. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, legal, and government, which often use document management solutions, could face reputational damage and financial penalties. The remote exploitability without authentication increases the risk of widespread automated attacks, especially given the public availability of exploit code. The lack of vendor response and patch availability exacerbates the threat, forcing organizations to rely on defensive measures. Additionally, attackers could use this vulnerability as a foothold for further network compromise, lateral movement, or deployment of ransomware. The impact is heightened in environments where DocSys is integrated with other critical systems or stores highly sensitive documents.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Oct 2025, 07:53 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats