VulnerabilityPublished 18 Mar 2026Updated 19 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-55045: MuraCMS · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: MuraCMS up to 10.1.10

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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 18 Mar 2026
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 CVE-2025-55045 effectively, organizations should first verify if their MuraCMS deployment is at or below version 10.1.10 and apply any available patches or updates from the vendor as soon as they are released. In the absence of official patches, administrators should implement strict Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the domains from which scripts and forms can be loaded, reducing the risk of CSRF attacks. Additionally, enabling SameSite cookies with 'Strict' or 'Lax' attributes can help prevent cross-origin requests from being sent with authentication cookies. Administrators should be trained to avoid visiting untrusted or suspicious websites while logged into MuraCMS. Network-level protections such as web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious POST requests to the updateAddress endpoint. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrator accounts can reduce the risk of account compromise, indirectly mitigating exploitation risk. Finally, monitoring and alerting on unexpected changes to user address data can help detect exploitation attempts early. Organizations should also review and harden their internal processes for managing user data to limit the impact of any unauthorized changes.

Description

CVE-2025-55045 is a high-severity Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in MuraCMS up to version 10.1.10 affecting the updateAddress function. The vulnerability arises because this function does not validate CSRF tokens, allowing attackers to craft malicious web pages that, when visited by an authenticated administrator, automatically submit requests to add, modify, or delete user address information. Exploitation can lead to unauthorized changes in user contact details, including injection of attacker-controlled email addresses and phone numbers, potentially redirecting sensitive communications and disrupting business operations. This manipulation compromises data integrity and user privacy and may facilitate social engineering attacks. The vulnerability requires the administrator to visit a malicious webpage but does not require additional privileges or complex conditions. Although no known exploits are currently reported in the wild, the vulnerability's ease of exploitation and impact on integrity warrant urgent attention. Organizations using MuraCMS should prioritize patching or implementing mitigations to prevent unauthorized address manipulation.

Impact

The exploitation of CVE-2025-55045 can have several adverse effects on organizations worldwide using MuraCMS. Unauthorized manipulation of user address information can lead to misdirected sensitive communications, such as invoices, legal notices, or confidential correspondence, potentially causing financial loss or legal exposure. Injected attacker-controlled contact details can facilitate social engineering or phishing attacks, increasing the risk of credential theft or further compromise. Deletion of legitimate address records can disrupt business operations by causing communication failures or delays. The integrity of organizational data is directly affected, undermining trust in the system and potentially damaging the organization's reputation. Since the vulnerability requires an authenticated administrator to visit a malicious webpage, targeted spear-phishing campaigns could be used to exploit this flaw. Organizations with high reliance on MuraCMS for managing user or customer contact information are particularly at risk. Although availability is not impacted, the confidentiality impact is low but not negligible due to potential indirect data exposure through social engineering. Overall, the threat could facilitate broader attacks by undermining communication channels and enabling attacker persistence or escalation.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Mar 2026, 01:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats