CVE-2025-48388VulnerabilityPublished 29 May 2025

CVE-2025-48388: freescout · Use of Externally-Controlled Format String

Affects freescoutSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.0 High : upgrade to 1.8.178 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.0High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.8.178

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 May 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 2026-10-26.

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 freescout-help-desk/freescout to 1.8.178.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubfreescout-help-desk/freescout`pkg:github/freescout-help-desk/freescout`Other threats	Affected <1.8.178	Fixed in 1.8.178

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify their FreeScout version and upgrade to version 1.8.178 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Beyond patching, organizations should implement strict access controls to limit the number of users with high privileges, reducing the attack surface. Input validation and sanitization should be enforced at the application level to prevent malicious format strings from being processed. Logging and monitoring should be enhanced to detect unusual input patterns or errors related to string formatting functions. Network segmentation can limit the impact of a compromised FreeScout instance. Additionally, organizations should conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on self-hosted applications to identify similar vulnerabilities proactively. Finally, maintaining an incident response plan that includes scenarios involving internal privilege misuse will help mitigate potential exploitation consequences.

Description

FreeScout is a free self-hosted help desk and shared mailbox. Prior to version 1.8.178, the application performs insufficient validation of user-supplied data, which is used as arguments to string formatting functions. As a result, an attacker can pass a string containing special symbols (\r, \n, \t)to the application. This issue has been patched in version 1.8.178.

Impact

For European organizations using FreeScout as part of their customer support or internal help desk infrastructure, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. An attacker with elevated privileges could exploit the format string flaw to manipulate application behavior, potentially leading to unauthorized data disclosure or corruption of help desk records. This could undermine customer trust, violate data protection regulations such as GDPR, and disrupt business operations. Given that FreeScout is self-hosted, organizations that have not applied the patch remain vulnerable. The impact is particularly critical for sectors with sensitive customer data, such as finance, healthcare, and government agencies. Additionally, exploitation could be used as a foothold for further lateral movement within the network, increasing the overall risk profile. The lack of known exploits currently reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate the risk, especially as attackers may develop exploits over time.

CWE-134Use of Externally-Controlled Format String (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
Requirements
Choose a language that is not subject to this flaw.
Implementation
Ensure that all format string functions are passed a static string which cannot be controlled by the user, and that the proper number of arguments are always sent to that function as well. If at all possible, use functions that do not support the %n operator in format strings.
Build and Compilation
Run compilers and linkers with high warning levels, since they may detect incorrect usage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Format String Injection (opens in a new tab)
String Format Overflow in syslog() (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-93Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
Implementation
Avoid using CRLF as a special sequence.
Implementation
Appropriately filter or quote CRLF sequences in user-controlled input.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
Web Server Logs Tampering (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 7 Jul 2025, 04:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-134, CWE-93

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats