CVE-2025-15005VulnerabilityPublished 22 Dec 2025Updated 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-15005: CouchCMS · Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key

Affects CouchCMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 22 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
Packagistcouchcms/couchcms`pkg:composer/couchcms/couchcms`Other threats	Affected =2.0 =2.1 =2.2 =2.3 =2.4	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-15005, organizations should immediately avoid using the affected CouchCMS versions (2.0 to 2.4) or apply patches if and when they become available from the vendor. This involves editing the configuration files to remove any default or example keys and implementing environment-specific secrets management. Additionally, it is advisable to monitor web application logs for unusual patterns indicative of CAPTCHA bypass attempts or automated abuse. Employing additional layers of bot detection and rate limiting can help reduce the risk of exploitation. Regularly updating CouchCMS to future versions that address this vulnerability is critical. Finally, security teams should educate developers and administrators about the risks of hard-coded keys and enforce secure coding practices to prevent similar issues.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in CouchCMS up to 2.4. Affected is an unknown function of the file couch/config.example.php of the component reCAPTCHA Handler. The manipulation of the argument K_RECAPTCHA_SITE_KEY/K_RECAPTCHA_SECRET_KEY results in use of hard-coded cryptographic key . It is possible to launch the attack remotely. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitability is told to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-15005 is the potential compromise of the reCAPTCHA mechanism in CouchCMS-powered websites. By exploiting the hard-coded cryptographic keys, attackers could bypass CAPTCHA protections, enabling automated bots to submit forms, post spam, or conduct brute force attacks on user authentication or other protected endpoints. This could lead to increased spam, fraudulent transactions, or unauthorized access attempts. While the vulnerability does not directly expose sensitive data or allow system compromise, it weakens an important security control, increasing the risk of secondary attacks. Organizations relying on CouchCMS for content management and user interaction forms may face reputational damage, increased operational costs due to spam mitigation, and potential data integrity issues if automated attacks succeed. The medium severity rating reflects the limited scope but meaningful impact on web application security posture.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…