VulnerabilityPublished 29 Nov 2025Updated 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-53897: kiteworks security-advisories · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects kiteworks security-advisoriesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 9.1.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.1.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 29 Nov 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

Upgrade kiteworks/security-advisories to 9.1.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubkiteworks/security-advisories`pkg:github/kiteworks/security-advisories`Other threats	Affected <9.1.0	Fixed in 9.1.0

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 verify the version of Kiteworks MFT in use and upgrade to version 9.1.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Beyond patching, organizations should implement strict administrative access controls and reduce the attack surface by limiting administrator web access to trusted networks or VPNs. Employing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrator accounts can reduce the risk of credential compromise. Security awareness training focused on phishing and social engineering can help prevent administrators from interacting with malicious pages. Additionally, organizations should monitor logs for unusual access patterns or attempts to access log information unexpectedly. Implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers and SameSite cookie attributes can help mitigate CSRF risks by restricting cross-origin requests. Regular security assessments and penetration testing should include checks for CSRF vulnerabilities. Finally, segregating duties and limiting log access to only necessary personnel can reduce the impact if an exploit occurs.

Description

Kiteworks MFT orchestrates end-to-end file transfer workflows. Prior to version 9.1.0, this vulnerability could allow an external attacker to gain access to log information from the system by tricking an administrator into browsing a specifically crafted fake page of Kiteworks MFT. This issue has been patched in version 9.1.0.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-53897 can be significant, especially in sectors handling sensitive or regulated data such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure. Unauthorized access to log information can lead to exposure of operational details, user activities, and potentially sensitive metadata that could facilitate further attacks or compliance violations under regulations like GDPR. The confidentiality breach could undermine trust and lead to reputational damage. Since Kiteworks MFT is used for secure file transfer workflows, any compromise in its integrity or confidentiality could disrupt business processes or lead to data leakage. Although availability is not affected, the indirect consequences of data exposure and potential regulatory penalties could be costly. The requirement for administrator interaction limits the attack scope but does not eliminate risk, particularly in environments where administrators may be targeted via phishing or social engineering. Organizations relying on Kiteworks MFT must consider this vulnerability a priority to mitigate risks associated with unauthorized data disclosure.

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

github.com/kiteworks/security-advisories/security/advisories/GHSA-cxwc-7899-3h4m (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Dec 2025, 04:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats