VulnerabilityPublished 29 May 2025

CVE-2025-48473: freescout · Incorrect Authorization

Affects freescoutSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.8.179 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.8.179

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within 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 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

Upgrade freescout-help-desk/freescout to 1.8.179.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubfreescout-help-desk/freescout`pkg:github/freescout-help-desk/freescout`Other threats	Affected <1.8.179	Fixed in 1.8.179

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediate upgrade of FreeScout installations to version 1.8.179 or later, where the authorization check has been properly implemented. 2. Conduct an internal audit of user permissions and access controls within FreeScout to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to sensitive conversations. 3. Implement strict role-based access controls (RBAC) and review the configuration of the 'show_only_assigned_conversations' setting to ensure it is enabled and correctly enforced. 4. Monitor logs for unusual access patterns or attempts to create conversations from messages outside assigned mailboxes, which could indicate exploitation attempts. 5. If upgrading immediately is not feasible, consider restricting user capabilities temporarily to minimize the risk of unauthorized message access. 6. Educate help desk staff and administrators about the vulnerability and encourage vigilance regarding suspicious activity. 7. Regularly review and apply security patches for all components of the help desk infrastructure to reduce exposure to similar vulnerabilities.

Description

FreeScout is a free self-hosted help desk and shared mailbox. Prior to version 1.8.179, when creating a conversation from a message in another conversation, there is no check to ensure that the user has the ability to view this message. Thus, the user can view arbitrary messages from other mailboxes or from other conversations to which they do not have access (access restriction to conversations is implemented by the show_only_assigned_conversations setting, which is also not checked). This issue has been patched in version 1.8.179.

Impact

For European organizations using FreeScout as their help desk or shared mailbox solution, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to data confidentiality and privacy. Unauthorized access to messages could lead to leakage of sensitive customer data, internal communications, or personally identifiable information (PII), potentially violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. The breach of confidentiality could damage organizational reputation and result in regulatory fines. Additionally, unauthorized users might manipulate or misuse information obtained from other conversations, impacting data integrity and trustworthiness of the help desk system. Since FreeScout is often used by SMEs and public sector entities for customer support, the exposure could affect critical communication channels. The medium severity score suggests that while the vulnerability is not trivially exploitable by unauthenticated attackers, any user with limited access privileges can exploit it, increasing the attack surface within an organization. This is particularly concerning in environments with multiple users having different access levels. The lack of user interaction requirement means exploitation can be automated or performed stealthily once access is gained.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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, 23:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats