VulnerabilityPublished 25 Aug 2025Updated 26 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-52130: WebErpMesv2 · File Upload

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: 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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Aug 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement strict file upload validation controls within WebErpMesv2, including whitelisting allowed file types and enforcing server-side checks to reject executable scripts or files with dangerous extensions. Immediate steps include restricting upload directories to non-executable locations and disabling direct HTTP access to uploaded files where possible. Employing web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block suspicious file upload attempts can provide additional protection. Organizations should enforce strong authentication mechanisms, including multi-factor authentication (MFA), to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Regular monitoring of web server logs for unusual file uploads or access patterns is advised. Conducting security awareness training to prevent credential theft and phishing attacks will also reduce exploitation likelihood.

Description

File upload vulnerability in WebErpMesv2 1.17 in the app/Http/Controllers/FactoryController.php controller. This flaw allows an authenticated attacker to upload arbitrary files, including PHP scripts, which can be accessed via direct GET requests, potentially resulting in remote code execution (RCE) on the web server.

Impact

For European organizations using WebErpMesv2 1.17, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of their enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on the web server, leading to unauthorized access to sensitive business data, manipulation of manufacturing or factory control processes, and potential lateral movement within the network. Given that ERP systems often integrate with critical business functions such as supply chain, inventory, and production management, an attacker could disrupt operations or exfiltrate intellectual property. Although availability impact is rated low, the indirect consequences of data breaches or operational disruptions could be severe. The requirement for authentication limits exposure to internal or compromised users, but social engineering or credential theft could facilitate exploitation. European organizations must consider the regulatory implications under GDPR if personal or sensitive data is involved, as well as the reputational damage from such breaches.

CWE-616Incomplete Identification of Uploaded File Variables (PHP) (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The PHP application uses an old method for processing uploaded files by referencing the four global variables that are set for each file (e.g. $varname, $varname_size, $varname_name, $varname_type). These variables could be overwritten by attackers, causing the application to process unauthorized files.
Architecture and Design
Use PHP 4 or later.
Architecture and Design
If you must support older PHP versions, write your own version of is_uploaded_file() and run it against $HTTP_POST_FILES['userfile']))
Implementation
For later PHP versions, reference uploaded files using the $HTTP_POST_FILES or $_FILES variables, and use is_uploaded_file() or move_uploaded_file() to ensure that you are dealing with an uploaded file.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Sep 2025, 01:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-616

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats