VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-41404: iroha Board · Forced Browsing

Affects iroha BoardSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 26 Jun 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 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
iroha Soft Co., Ltd. iroha Board	Affected <=0.10.12	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade iroha Board to the latest version beyond v0.10.12 as soon as a patch or fixed version becomes available from iroha Soft Co., Ltd. 2. Until a patch is available, implement strict access controls and monitoring on user accounts with login privileges to detect and prevent unauthorized access or suspicious browsing behavior. 3. Enforce the principle of least privilege by limiting user permissions to only those necessary for their roles, reducing the risk of sensitive content exposure. 4. Conduct regular audits of access logs to identify any forced browsing attempts or unusual URL access patterns. 5. Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of account compromise. 6. If possible, configure web application firewalls (WAFs) or reverse proxies to detect and block suspicious direct URL requests that attempt to access non-public resources. 7. Educate users about the risks of credential sharing and phishing attacks that could lead to account compromise. 8. Segregate sensitive content within iroha Board using additional authentication or encryption layers to mitigate the impact of forced browsing.

Description

Direct request ('Forced Browsing') issue exists in iroha Board versions v0.10.12 and earlier. If this vulnerability is exploited, non-public contents may be viewed by an attacker who can log in to the affected product.

Impact

For European organizations using iroha Board, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive internal information, such as confidential documents, project details, or proprietary data. Although the vulnerability requires authenticated access, it increases the risk posed by insider threats or compromised user accounts. This could result in breaches of data privacy regulations such as GDPR if personal or sensitive data is exposed. The impact on integrity and availability is negligible, but confidentiality breaches can damage organizational reputation, lead to competitive disadvantages, or cause regulatory penalties. Organizations in sectors with high confidentiality requirements—such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure—may face more severe consequences. Additionally, the lack of known exploits in the wild suggests limited immediate risk, but the presence of a publicly known vulnerability increases the likelihood of future exploitation attempts. The medium severity rating indicates that while the vulnerability is not critical, it should be addressed promptly to reduce risk exposure.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Jun 2025, 06:41 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats