CVE-2025-23113VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jan 2025Updated 13 Jan 2025

CVE-2025-23113: Vanderbilt REDCap · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Vanderbilt REDCapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.4 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.4Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Jan 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
GitHubping-oui-no/REDCap`pkg:github/ping-oui-no/REDCap`Other threats	Affected =14.9.6	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should implement CSRF protections on all state-changing endpoints, especially the logout functionality, by incorporating anti-CSRF tokens or same-site cookie attributes. Until an official patch is released, administrators should restrict CSV file uploads to trusted users and validate or sanitize alert-title inputs to prevent HTML injection. User training should emphasize caution when interacting with uploaded data, particularly clicking on alert titles or links from untrusted sources. Monitoring and logging of logout events can help detect abnormal session terminations. Network-level controls such as web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious requests targeting the logout endpoint. Additionally, organizations should keep REDCap installations updated and subscribe to vendor advisories for timely patch deployment once available. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) can reduce the impact of phishing redirects by protecting user credentials.

Description

An issue was discovered in REDCap 14.9.6. It has an action=myprojects&logout=1 CSRF issue in the alert-title while performing an upload of a CSV file containing a list of alert configuration. An attacker can send the victim a CSV file containing an HTML injection payload in the alert-title. Once the victim uploads the file, he automatically lands on a page to view the uploaded data. If the victim click on the alert-title value, it can trigger a logout request and terminates their session, or redirect to a phishing website. This vulnerability stems from the absence of CSRF protections on the logout functionality.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is session termination through forced logout, which can disrupt ongoing research activities and data entry in REDCap. Additionally, the ability to redirect users to phishing websites poses a risk of credential theft or further compromise through social engineering. While the vulnerability does not directly expose sensitive data or allow privilege escalation, the forced logout can cause denial of service to legitimate users. Organizations relying heavily on REDCap for clinical or research data collection may experience operational interruptions. The phishing redirect vector could be exploited to target users with tailored attacks, potentially leading to broader security incidents. Since exploitation requires user interaction, the risk is somewhat mitigated, but targeted attacks against research staff or administrators remain a concern. The absence of known exploits suggests limited current threat activity, but the vulnerability should be addressed promptly to prevent future abuse.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/ping-oui-no/Vulnerability-Research-CVESS/blob/main/RedCap/CVE_XXX/README.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 12:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats