CVE-2025-54877VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-54877: Enalean tuleap · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Enalean tuleapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 16.10.99.1754050155 : update Enalean tuleap when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.10.99.1754050155

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 29 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

European organizations should promptly upgrade to the fixed versions of Tuleap: Community Edition 16.10.99.1754050155 or later, and Enterprise Edition 16.9-8 or 16.10-5 or later. Until upgrades are applied, organizations should audit and restrict access permissions to minimize exposure, ensuring that only trusted users have access to sensitive artifacts. Implementing network segmentation and access controls to limit Tuleap server access to authorized personnel can reduce risk. Additionally, monitoring access logs for unusual or unauthorized access attempts to artifacts can help detect exploitation attempts. Organizations should also review their internal policies on artifact field usage to avoid storing highly sensitive information in the affected special fields. Regular vulnerability scanning and patch management processes should be enforced to prevent exploitation of similar authorization issues.

Description

Tuleap is an Open Source Suite created to facilitate management of software development and collaboration. In Tuleap Community Edition versions before 16.10.99.1754050155 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition versions before 16.9-8 and before 16.10-5, an attacker can access to the content of the special and always there fields of accessible artifacts even if the permissions associated with the underlying fields do not allow it. This issue has been fixed in Tuleap Community Edition version 16.10.99.1754050155 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition versions 16.9-8 and 16.10-5.

Impact

For European organizations using Tuleap for software development and project management, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive project data, including potentially confidential artifact information that should be restricted. This exposure could undermine intellectual property confidentiality, reveal internal workflows, or disclose sensitive technical details. While the vulnerability does not allow modification or disruption of data (no integrity or availability impact), unauthorized read access can still have significant consequences, especially for organizations handling sensitive or regulated data. Given the collaborative nature of Tuleap, unauthorized access could also facilitate further reconnaissance by attackers, potentially leading to more targeted attacks. The medium severity score suggests a moderate risk; however, the impact could be more pronounced in sectors with strict data confidentiality requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government agencies within Europe.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 29 Aug 2025, 15:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats