CVE-2025-53546VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-53546: RSSNext Folo · Untrusted Functionality Inclusion

Affects RSSNext FoloSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% 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:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 9 Jul 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 2026-10-25.

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

European organizations should immediately audit their use of RSSNext Folo and GitHub workflows to identify any usage of 'pull_request_target' events, especially in '.github/workflows/auto-fix-lint-format-commit.yml' or similar files. They must update Folo to the fixed version containing commit 585c6a591440cd39f92374230ac5d65d7dd23d6a or later. Additionally, organizations should avoid using 'pull_request_target' unless absolutely necessary and understand the security implications; prefer 'pull_request' event which runs in the context of the forked repository with limited permissions. Implement strict secret management policies by restricting the scope and permissions of GITHUB_TOKEN and other secrets, using environment variables with least privilege principles, and rotating tokens regularly. Employ branch protection rules and require code reviews to prevent unauthorized workflow changes. Monitor GitHub audit logs for unusual activity related to workflows and token usage. Finally, conduct security training for developers on secure GitHub Actions usage and review third-party workflows before integration.

Description

Folo organizes feeds content into one timeline. Using pull_request_target on .github/workflows/auto-fix-lint-format-commit.yml can be exploited by attackers, since untrusted code can be executed having full access to secrets (from the base repo). By exploiting the vulnerability is possible to exfiltrate GITHUB_TOKEN which has high privileges. GITHUB_TOKEN can be used to completely overtake the repo since the token has content write privileges. This vulnerability is fixed in commit 585c6a591440cd39f92374230ac5d65d7dd23d6a.

Impact

For European organizations using RSSNext's Folo, especially those integrating GitHub Actions workflows with 'pull_request_target' events, this vulnerability poses a severe risk. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to repository secrets, including tokens with write permissions, enabling attackers to manipulate source code, inject backdoors, or disrupt development pipelines. This can compromise intellectual property, lead to supply chain attacks, and damage organizational reputation. Given the widespread adoption of GitHub for software development across Europe, organizations relying on Folo for feed aggregation or similar integrations could face risks of codebase compromise. The breach of repository integrity can cascade into production environments if CI/CD pipelines are compromised, potentially impacting service availability indirectly. Furthermore, regulatory frameworks such as GDPR impose strict data protection requirements, and a breach involving unauthorized code changes or data exfiltration could result in legal and financial penalties for affected European entities.

CWE-829Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
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.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Vulnerable Dependency Management (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.6 (opens in a new tab)
V14.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V14.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Serialized Data External Linking (opens in a new tab)
DTD Injection (opens in a new tab)
Local Code Inclusion (opens in a new tab)
PHP Local File Inclusion (opens in a new tab)
Remote Code Inclusion (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 9 Jul 2025, 14:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-829

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats