VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48991: Enalean tuleap · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Enalean tuleapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.6 Medium · fixed in 16.8.99.1748845907 : update Enalean tuleap when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.8.99.1748845907, 16.8-3, 16.7-5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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: 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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 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

Upgrade enalean/tuleap to 16.8.99.1748845907, 16.8-3 or 16.7-5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubenalean/tuleap`pkg:github/enalean/tuleap`Other threats	Affected <16.8.99.1748845907 <16.8-3 <16.7-5	Fixed in 16.8.99.1748845907 16.8-3 16.7-5

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

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade Tuleap installations to the fixed versions: Community Edition 16.8.99.1748845907 or Enterprise Editions 16.8-3 and 16.7-5 as soon as possible to ensure built-in CSRF protections are applied. 2. Implement strict Content Security Policy (CSP) headers and SameSite cookie attributes to reduce the risk of CSRF attacks by limiting cross-origin requests. 3. Educate users about phishing and social engineering tactics that could lead to inadvertent interaction with malicious links or pages. 4. Review and monitor changes to canned responses and other critical configuration elements via audit logs or change management processes to detect unauthorized modifications promptly. 5. Where feasible, enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of compromised credentials being used in conjunction with CSRF attacks. 6. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules tuned to detect and block suspicious CSRF patterns or anomalous POST requests targeting Tuleap endpoints. 7. For organizations with custom Tuleap integrations, verify that API endpoints and webhooks also implement CSRF protections or token-based validation to prevent abuse. 8. Regularly review and minimize user privileges to ensure that only necessary personnel have the ability to modify canned responses or other sensitive settings.

Description

Tuleap is an Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. An attacker could use a vulnerability present in Tuleap Community Edition prior to version 16.8.99.1748845907 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition prior to versions 16.8-3 and 16.7-5 to trick victims into changing the canned responses. Tuleap Community Edition 16.8.99.1748845907, Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.8-3, and Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.7-5 contain a fix for the vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations using Tuleap, especially those relying on it for managing software development and collaboration workflows, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized alterations of canned responses. While this may seem minor, such changes can disrupt communication efficiency, introduce misleading or incorrect information in issue tracking or customer support processes, and potentially degrade trust in the platform. In environments where Tuleap is integrated with other development or operational tools, manipulated responses could propagate errors or misconfigurations downstream. Although the vulnerability does not allow direct data exfiltration or system takeover, the integrity compromise could facilitate social engineering or further attacks by confusing users or masking malicious activity. Organizations with strict compliance requirements or those operating in regulated sectors may face audit or operational risks if such unauthorized changes go undetected. The requirement for user interaction and authenticated access limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, particularly in large teams or environments where users may be targeted via phishing or malicious websites. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but does not preclude future exploitation attempts.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
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.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (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 25 Jun 2025, 14:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats