VulnerabilityPublished 6 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-28129: Phpgurukul Hostel Management System · Clickjacking

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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 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 6 Oct 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Configure the web server or application to include the X-Frame-Options HTTP header set to DENY or SAMEORIGIN to prevent framing by unauthorized sites. 2) Alternatively or additionally, implement the Content Security Policy (CSP) frame-ancestors directive to restrict which domains can embed the application in frames. 3) Conduct a thorough review of the application’s UI to ensure sensitive actions require explicit user confirmation and cannot be triggered by hidden or disguised elements. 4) Educate users about the risks of clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted websites that could host malicious frames. 5) Monitor web traffic and logs for unusual patterns indicative of clickjacking attempts or UI manipulation. 6) Engage with the software vendor or community to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability. 7) Consider deploying browser security features or extensions that detect and block clickjacking attempts. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on HTTP header configurations, user interaction safeguards, and proactive monitoring tailored to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

Phpgurukul Hostel Management System 2.1 is vulnerable to clickjacking.

Impact

For European organizations, especially educational institutions, student housing providers, or any entities using Phpgurukul Hostel Management System 2.1, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized actions performed on behalf of legitimate users. Potential impacts include manipulation of booking data, unauthorized changes to user profiles, or disruption of hostel management operations. While confidentiality impact is limited since the attack primarily targets user actions, integrity and availability could be compromised if attackers trick users into submitting malicious commands or changing system configurations. This could result in operational disruptions, data inconsistencies, or reputational damage. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the ease of exploitation through social engineering and web embedding techniques means attackers could develop exploits quickly. European organizations with less mature web security practices or lacking monitoring for UI manipulation attacks are at higher risk. The impact is more pronounced in countries with widespread use of PHP-based management systems and where hostel management is critical for student populations.

CWE-1021Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain.
Implementation
The use of X-Frame-Options allows developers of web content to restrict the usage of their application within the form of overlays, frames, or iFrames. The developer can indicate from which domains can frame the content.
Implementation
A developer can use a "frame-breaker" script in each page that should not be framed. This is very helpful for legacy browsers that do not support X-Frame-Options security feature previously mentioned.
Implementation
This defense-in-depth technique can be used to prevent the improper usage of frames in web applications. It prioritizes the valid sources of data to be loaded into the application through the usage of declarative policies.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.7 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Clickjacking (opens in a new tab)
Flash File Overlay (opens in a new tab)
iFrame Overlay (opens in a new tab)
Task Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Tapjacking (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/NullMinds/CVE-Hunting/blob/main/Hostel%20Management%20System%20in%20PHP/Clickjacking.pdf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Oct 2025, 18:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1021

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats