VulnerabilityPublished 30 May 2025

CVE-2025-48490: Lomkit laravel-rest-api · Improper Input Validation

Affects Lomkit laravel-rest-apiSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.6 Medium : upgrade to 2.13.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.13.0

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: Unreported

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence 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.
Exploit Maturity: Unreported: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 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 lomkit/laravel-rest-api to 2.13.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHublomkit/laravel-rest-api`pkg:github/lomkit/laravel-rest-api`Other threats	Affected <2.13.0	Fixed in 2.13.0

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 audit their use of Lomkit laravel-rest-api and verify the version in use. Upgrading to version 2.13.0 or later is the primary and most effective mitigation. Where immediate upgrade is not feasible, organizations should implement strict input validation at multiple layers, including web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect anomalous or unexpected parameters. API gateways should enforce schema validation and reject requests with unexpected or duplicate parameters. Logging and monitoring should be enhanced to detect unusual API request patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should conduct thorough security testing of their APIs, including fuzz testing and validation rule verification, to identify any residual validation bypass issues. Developers should review and refactor validation logic to avoid overlapping or conflicting rules across contexts. Finally, organizations should maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any exploitation attempts.

Description

Laravel Rest Api is an API generator. Prior to version 2.13.0, a validation bypass vulnerability was discovered where multiple validations defined for the same attribute could be silently overridden. Due to how the framework merged validation rules across multiple contexts (such as index, store, and update actions), malicious actors could exploit this behavior by crafting requests that bypass expected validation rules, potentially injecting unexpected or dangerous parameters into the application. This could lead to unauthorized data being accepted or processed by the API, depending on the context in which the validation was bypassed. This issue has been patched in version 2.13.0.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those relying on Lomkit laravel-rest-api for critical API services. The bypass of validation rules can lead to unauthorized data being accepted and processed, potentially compromising data integrity and leading to downstream application logic errors or security breaches. This could affect sectors such as finance, healthcare, e-commerce, and government services where APIs handle sensitive or regulated data. The ability to exploit this vulnerability without authentication or user interaction means attackers can remotely target exposed APIs, increasing the attack surface. If exploited, it could facilitate injection of malicious parameters, unauthorized data modification, or bypass of business logic constraints, potentially resulting in fraud, data corruption, or service disruption. Given the widespread use of Laravel-based APIs in Europe, the impact could be broad, affecting both private and public sector organizations that have not updated to the patched version.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (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
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1173Improper Use of Validation Framework (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2021: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use, or incorrectly uses, an input validation framework that is provided by the source language or an independent library.
Implementation
Properly use provided input validation frameworks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (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, 21:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-1173

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats