CVE-2025-52338VulnerabilityPublished 19 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-52338: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 19 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 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, European organizations should first apply any available patches or updates from LogicData as soon as they are released. In the absence of patches, immediate configuration changes should be implemented to harden the password reset process: enforce strict rate limiting on password reset requests to prevent brute force attempts; integrate CAPTCHA challenges to block automated attacks; require multi-factor authentication (MFA) for password resets to add an additional verification layer; implement monitoring and alerting for unusual password reset activity; and review and tighten access controls around user account management. Additionally, organizations should conduct thorough security audits of their eCommerce platforms to identify any similar weaknesses. User education on recognizing phishing attempts and suspicious account activity can also reduce the risk of successful exploitation. Finally, logging and incident response plans should be updated to quickly detect and respond to any exploitation attempts.

Description

An issue in the default configuration of the password reset function in LogicData eCommerce Framework v5.0.9.7000 allows attackers to bypass authentication and compromise user accounts via a bruteforce attack.

Impact

For European organizations using the LogicData eCommerce Framework, this vulnerability could have severe consequences. Compromised user accounts can lead to data breaches involving personally identifiable information (PII) and payment details, which would invoke strict regulatory scrutiny under GDPR. The reputational damage and potential financial penalties could be substantial. Additionally, attackers gaining control over user accounts could manipulate orders, commit fraud, or disrupt business operations. The vulnerability also increases the risk of lateral movement within the affected systems if attackers leverage compromised accounts to escalate privileges. Given the eCommerce context, customer trust is paramount, and any exploitation could result in loss of business and customer attrition. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the ease of brute force attacks on password reset functions means the threat could rapidly escalate once exploited.

CWE-288Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
Architecture and Design
Funnel all access through a single choke point to simplify how users can access a resource. For every access, perform a check to determine if the user has permissions to access the resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 19 Aug 2025, 19:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-288

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats