CVE-2025-1542VulnerabilityPublished 26 Mar 2025Updated 3 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-1542: Infonet Projekt SA OXARI ServiceDesk · Forced Browsing

Affects Infonet Projekt SA OXARI ServiceDeskSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.3Critical

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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: 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: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Mar 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
Infonet Projekt SA OXARI ServiceDesk	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include restricting or disabling guest and unprivileged access to the OXARI ServiceDesk application until a patch is available. 2. Implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to limit access to the ServiceDesk application only to trusted internal IP addresses and users. 3. Monitor application logs for unusual access patterns or privilege escalations, focusing on attempts to access administrative functions from guest or low-privilege accounts. 4. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block forced browsing attempts targeting administrative endpoints. 5. Conduct a thorough review of user permissions and audit all administrative accounts to ensure no unauthorized changes have occurred. 6. Engage with Infonet Projekt SA for timely updates and patches, and plan for rapid deployment once available. 7. Educate IT staff about the vulnerability and the importance of monitoring and incident response readiness. 8. Consider implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrative access to add an additional security layer, even though the vulnerability allows privilege escalation without authentication, MFA can help mitigate further unauthorized access post-exploitation.

Description

Improper permission control vulnerability in the OXARI ServiceDesk application could allow an attacker using a guest access or an unprivileged account to gain additional administrative permissions in the application.This issue affects OXARI ServiceDesk in versions before 2.0.324.0.

Impact

For European organizations using OXARI ServiceDesk, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of their IT service management operations. Unauthorized administrative access could allow attackers to view or modify sensitive service tickets, user data, and internal workflows, potentially leading to data breaches or operational disruptions. Given that ServiceDesk applications often integrate with other internal systems, exploitation could serve as a pivot point for broader network compromise. The critical severity and ease of exploitation without authentication mean that attackers could rapidly leverage this vulnerability to gain control, increasing the risk of insider-like attacks or external threat actors disrupting business continuity. This is particularly concerning for sectors with strict data protection regulations such as finance, healthcare, and government agencies across Europe, where service desk data may contain personally identifiable information or sensitive operational details. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive defense, but the threat landscape could evolve quickly once exploit code becomes available.

CWE-425Direct Request ('Forced Browsing') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Apply appropriate access control authorizations for each access to all restricted URLs, scripts or files.
Architecture and Design
Consider using MVC based frameworks such as Struts.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Detect Unpublicized Web Pages (opens in a new tab)
Detect Unpublicized Web Services (opens in a new tab)
Key Negotiation of Bluetooth Attack (KNOB) (opens in a new tab)
Forceful Browsing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Oct 2025, 16:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-425

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats