CVE-2025-35053VulnerabilityPublished 9 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-35053: Newforma Project Center · Path Traversal

Affects Newforma Project CenterSource CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-35062

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.4Medium

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

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

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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 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 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
Newforma Project Center	Affected *	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediately review and disable anonymous access settings in Newforma Project Center, especially for versions prior to 2023.1, to prevent unauthenticated exploitation. 2. Apply any available patches or updates from Newforma as soon as they are released; monitor vendor advisories closely. 3. Implement strict access controls and network segmentation to limit access to the Project Center application to trusted users and networks only. 4. Monitor logs for unusual file access or deletion activities, particularly requests to '/UserWeb/Common/MarkupServices.ashx' with the 'DownloadExportedPDF' command. 5. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block path traversal attempts targeting this endpoint. 6. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on file handling and access control mechanisms within Newforma Project Center. 7. Educate administrators and users about the risks of default anonymous access and enforce strong authentication policies. 8. If patching is delayed, consider temporary mitigations such as restricting access to the vulnerable endpoint or disabling the affected functionality if feasible.

Description

CVE-2025-35053 is a medium severity path traversal vulnerability in Newforma Project Center that allows authenticated users to read and delete arbitrary files with NT AUTHORITY\NetworkService privileges via the '/UserWeb/Common/MarkupServices.ashx' endpoint. Versions before 2023.1 have anonymous access enabled by default (CVE-2025-35062), enabling unauthenticated attackers to exploit this vulnerability effectively as anonymous users. The vulnerability arises from improper limitation of pathname to restricted directories (CWE-22) and improper handling of file operations (CWE-73). Exploitation does not require user interaction but does require at least authenticated or anonymous access depending on version. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 6.4, reflecting a medium severity with network attack vector, low attack complexity, low privileges required, no user interaction, and partial confidentiality and availability impact. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, particularly for those in the architecture, engineering, and construction sectors where Newforma Project Center is commonly deployed. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive project files, intellectual property, and client data, undermining confidentiality. The ability to delete files with NetworkService privileges also risks disrupting project workflows and availability of critical documentation, potentially causing project delays and financial losses. Since the vulnerability can be exploited remotely over the network with low complexity, attackers could leverage it to gain footholds or disrupt operations. Organizations with lax access controls or default anonymous access settings are at higher risk. The partial compromise of confidentiality and availability can also have regulatory implications under GDPR if personal or sensitive data is exposed or lost. Additionally, the vulnerability could be leveraged as a pivot point for further attacks within corporate networks. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits after public disclosure.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-73External Control of File Name or Path (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
Architecture and Design
When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt".
Architecture and Design · Operation
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 all access to files within a particular directory.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Leverage Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
URL Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (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 17 Oct 2025, 05:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22, CWE-73

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats