CVE-2025-13815VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-13815: moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2 · Unrestricted Upload

Affects moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2Source 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 31% 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 1 Dec 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
moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2	Affected =5.0 =5.1 =5.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Since no official patches are available, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict file upload types strictly to safe formats (e.g., images only) using server-side validation and MIME type checks. 2) Employ a web application firewall (WAF) with rules to detect and block suspicious upload attempts targeting the /file/pictures endpoint. 3) Isolate the upload directory with minimal permissions and disable execution rights to prevent uploaded files from being executed as code. 4) Monitor server logs and file upload directories for anomalous or unexpected files and patterns. 5) Consider deploying virtual patching techniques or custom filters to sanitize inputs related to file uploads. 6) If feasible, migrate to alternative blogging platforms with active security support or earlier patched versions. 7) Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on file upload functionalities. 8) Educate administrators about the risks and signs of exploitation attempts related to this vulnerability.

Description

A weakness has been identified in moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2 up to 5.2. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /file/pictures. This manipulation of the argument filedatas causes unrestricted upload. The attack may be initiated 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 using Mogu Blog v2, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized file uploads that may compromise web server integrity, enable remote code execution, or facilitate further attacks such as data theft or service disruption. The impact on confidentiality includes potential exposure of sensitive data if attackers upload scripts to access backend information. Integrity could be compromised by altering website content or injecting malicious code. Availability may be affected if attackers upload files that disrupt service or consume resources. Given the medium severity and ease of exploitation without authentication, attackers could leverage this vulnerability to gain footholds in affected systems. Organizations relying on this blogging platform for public-facing websites or internal communications are at risk, particularly if no compensating controls are in place. The lack of vendor patches means the threat persists until mitigations are implemented, increasing potential exposure time.

Summary

CVE-2025-13815 identifies an unrestricted file upload vulnerability in the moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2 software, specifically affecting versions 5.0 through 5.2. The vulnerability arises from improper validation or sanitization of the 'filedatas' parameter in the /file/pictures endpoint, allowing an attacker to upload arbitrary files remotely without authentication or user interaction. This flaw can be exploited to upload malicious scripts or executables, potentially leading to remote code execution, data tampering, or denial of service. The CVSS 4.0 base score is 5.3, reflecting medium severity due to the lack of authentication requirements and ease of exploitation, but limited impact scope and partial confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact. The vendor has not issued any patches or responses despite early notification, and no known active exploitation has been reported, though proof-of-concept exploits are publicly available. This vulnerability poses a risk to any deployment of Mogu Blog v2 exposed to the internet, especially in environments where uploaded files are executed or accessible by other users. The absence of vendor mitigation increases the urgency for organizations to apply alternative security measures.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Dec 2025, 08:48 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats