VulnerabilityPublished 31 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-36563: Alfasado PowerCMS · Cross-site Scripting (XSS)

Affects Alfasado PowerCMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% 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:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 31 Jul 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

Organizations should immediately review their use of PowerCMS and identify if they are running version 6.7 or earlier. Until a vendor patch is available, practical mitigations include: 1) Educate and alert all CMS administrators about the risk of clicking untrusted links, especially those purporting to be related to PowerCMS administration. 2) Implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious URL patterns that may contain script injection attempts targeting the CMS admin interface. 3) Restrict administrative access to PowerCMS to trusted networks or VPNs to reduce exposure to external attackers. 4) Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to limit the execution of inline scripts and reduce the impact of XSS attacks. 5) Monitor administrative logs for unusual access patterns or repeated attempts to access crafted URLs. 6) Plan and prioritize upgrading to the latest PowerCMS version once a patch is released, or apply any available vendor-provided workarounds. 7) Consider multi-factor authentication (MFA) for CMS administrators to mitigate session hijacking risks.

Description

Reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability exists in multiple versions of PowerCMS. If a product administrator accesses a crafted URL, an arbitrary script may be executed on the browser.

Impact

For European organizations using PowerCMS 6.7 or earlier, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the security of their web content management infrastructure. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to hijack administrator sessions, inject malicious content into managed websites, or gain unauthorized access to sensitive configuration data. This could lead to defacement, data leakage, or further lateral movement within the organization's network. Given that PowerCMS is often used by enterprises, media companies, and government agencies to manage critical web assets, the impact could extend to reputational damage, regulatory non-compliance (especially under GDPR if personal data is exposed), and operational disruptions. The requirement for user interaction (administrator clicking the malicious URL) means social engineering tactics are likely to be employed. European organizations with remote or distributed administrative teams may be particularly vulnerable if administrators access the CMS from less secure environments. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for targeted attacks, especially as details become public.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 31 Jul 2025, 08:03 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats