CVE-2025-13116VulnerabilityPublished 13 Nov 2025Updated 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-13116: macrozheng mall-swarm · Improper Authorization

Affects macrozheng mall-swarmSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% 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:N/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: None
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: 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: 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 13 Nov 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 2026-10-25.

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
GitHubmacrozheng/mall-swarm`pkg:github/macrozheng/mall-swarm`Other threats	Affected =1.0.0 =1.0.1 =1.0.2 =1.0.3	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Since no official patches are available from the vendor, European organizations should implement the following mitigations: 1) Deploy strict access controls and input validation on the cancelUserOrder endpoint to ensure only authorized users can cancel their own orders. 2) Implement web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious manipulation of the orderId parameter. 3) Monitor logs for unusual cancellation patterns or repeated failed authorization attempts to identify potential exploitation attempts. 4) Employ rate limiting on order cancellation requests to reduce the risk of automated abuse. 5) Conduct thorough code reviews and consider temporary disabling or restricting the cancelUserOrder functionality if feasible until a patch is available. 6) Use network segmentation to isolate critical e-commerce components and reduce exposure. 7) Educate incident response teams to recognize and respond to signs of exploitation. 8) Engage with the vendor or community to track any updates or patches and apply them promptly once available. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on compensating controls tailored to the specific vulnerability and operational context.

Description

A weakness has been identified in macrozheng mall-swarm and mall up to 1.0.3. Affected is the function cancelUserOrder of the file /order/cancelUserOrder. Executing manipulation of the argument orderId can lead to improper authorization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to e-commerce platforms using macrozheng mall-swarm versions 1.0.0 to 1.0.3. Unauthorized order cancellations can result in financial losses, damage to customer trust, and disruption of supply chain or fulfillment processes. The integrity of order data is compromised, potentially affecting inventory management and revenue recognition. Availability of order management services may also be impacted if attackers exploit this flaw at scale. Given the remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit, attackers can operate from anywhere, increasing the threat landscape. Organizations in sectors with high transaction volumes or critical order processing workflows are especially vulnerable. Additionally, the absence of vendor patches means that affected organizations must rely on internal mitigations, increasing operational overhead. The impact extends beyond direct financial loss to reputational damage and potential regulatory scrutiny under data protection and consumer protection laws prevalent in Europe.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Dec 2025, 19:32 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats