CVE-2025-23209VulnerabilityPublished 18 Jan 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-23209: craftcms cms · Code Injection

Affects craftcms cmsSource CVE Database V5

Exploited in the wild · KEV due 13 Mar 2025 · 21% EPSS : upgrade to 5.5.8 or 4.13.8 now.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

KEV deadline: 13 Mar 2025 US federal agencies must patch by this date; a sensible deadline for everyone else.
EPSS: 21.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 97% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.5.8, 4.13.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 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: evidence found.
Listed in CISA KEV 33 days after disclosure
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

CVE ID reserved
by GitHub_M
2025-01-1317:15Z, 5 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
2025-01-1800:32Z, t = 0
Added to CISA KEV (opens in a new tab)
exploitation confirmed
2025-02-20, 33 days after disclosure
KEV remediation due
US federal deadline
2025-03-13, 54 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA KEV (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

Upgrade craftcms/cms to 5.5.8 or 4.13.8.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubcraftcms/cms`pkg:github/craftcms/cms`Other threats	Affected <4.13.8 <5.5.8	Fixed in 4.13.8 5.5.8

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

Description

Craft is a flexible, user-friendly CMS for creating custom digital experiences on the web and beyond. This is an remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability that affects Craft 4 and 5 installs where your security key has already been compromised. Anyone running an unpatched version of Craft with a compromised security key is affected. This vulnerability has been patched in Craft 5.5.8 and 4.13.8. Users who cannot update to a patched version, should rotate their security keys and ensure their privacy to help migitgate the issue.

Impact

The potential impact of CVE-2025-23209 is severe for organizations running vulnerable versions of Craft CMS with compromised security keys. Successful exploitation allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on the server, leading to full system compromise. This can result in unauthorized data access, data modification or deletion, defacement of websites, deployment of malware or ransomware, and disruption of services. The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of affected systems are all at high risk. Organizations relying on Craft CMS for critical web infrastructure or digital services could face significant operational and reputational damage. Additionally, attackers could leverage compromised systems as footholds for lateral movement within networks, escalating the threat beyond the CMS itself. The requirement of a compromised security key limits the attack surface but also highlights the importance of key management and security hygiene. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as threat actors may develop exploits rapidly once details are public.

Mitigation

1. Immediate patching: Upgrade Craft CMS installations to versions 4.13.8 or 5.5.8 or later where the vulnerability is fixed. 2. Security key rotation: For systems where patching is delayed, rotate the security keys to invalidate any compromised keys and reduce the risk of exploitation. 3. Access controls: Restrict access to the Craft CMS administrative interfaces and configuration files to trusted personnel only. 4. Monitor logs: Implement enhanced logging and monitoring to detect suspicious activities related to code injection or unauthorized access attempts. 5. Network segmentation: Isolate CMS servers from critical internal networks to limit lateral movement in case of compromise. 6. User training: Educate administrators on the importance of securing security keys and recognizing phishing or social engineering attempts that could lead to key compromise. 7. Backup and recovery: Maintain regular, secure backups of CMS data and configurations to enable rapid recovery in case of compromise. 8. Review third-party plugins and integrations for additional vulnerabilities or insecure practices that could facilitate key compromise or exploitation. 9. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules tuned to detect and block code injection attempts targeting Craft CMS. 10. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on CMS security posture and key management practices.

Summary

CVE-2025-23209 is a remote code execution vulnerability classified under CWE-94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code) affecting Craft CMS, a popular content management system used for building custom digital experiences. The vulnerability exists in Craft CMS versions 4.0.0-RC1 up to but not including 4.13.8, and 5.0.0-RC1 up to but not including 5.5.5. The root cause is improper sanitization or control over dynamically generated code, which allows an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code remotely. However, exploitation requires that the attacker already has access to a compromised security key, which is a critical prerequisite. The security key in Craft CMS is used for cryptographic operations and securing sensitive data, so its compromise significantly lowers the barrier for exploitation. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1, indicating high severity, with attack vector being network-based (AV:N), requiring low privileges (PR:L), user interaction (UI:R), and high complexity (AC:H). The scope is changed (S:C), meaning the vulnerability can affect resources beyond the initially vulnerable component. The impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability is high (C:H/I:H/A:H), meaning successful exploitation can lead to full system compromise, data theft, or service disruption. The vendor has patched this vulnerability in Craft CMS versions 4.13.8 and 5.5.8. For users unable to upgrade immediately, rotating security keys and ensuring privacy controls are recommended to mitigate risk. No public exploits or active exploitation have been reported yet, but the vulnerability's nature and impact make it a critical concern for affected users.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 23:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats