CVE-2025-5732VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jun 2025Updated 9 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-5732: code-projects Traffic Offense Reporting System · Cross-Site Request Forgery

Affects code-projects Traffic Offense Reporting SystemSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jun 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
code-projects Traffic Offense Reporting System	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate implementation of CSRF protection mechanisms such as anti-CSRF tokens in all state-changing requests within the Traffic Offense Reporting System. 2. Enforce strict SameSite cookie attributes (preferably 'Strict') to limit cookie transmission in cross-site contexts. 3. Require user re-authentication or multi-factor authentication for sensitive operations to reduce risk from CSRF attacks. 4. Conduct a thorough security review and code audit of the Traffic Offense Reporting System to identify and remediate all CSRF vulnerabilities and related security issues. 5. Monitor web server logs and application activity for unusual or unauthorized requests that may indicate exploitation attempts. 6. If possible, isolate the Traffic Offense Reporting System behind a web application firewall (WAF) configured to detect and block CSRF attack patterns. 7. Educate users and administrators about the risk of CSRF and encourage cautious behavior regarding suspicious links or websites. 8. Engage with the vendor or development community to obtain or develop patches and updates addressing this vulnerability. 9. Implement network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of the system to only trusted users and networks.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in code-projects Traffic Offense Reporting System 1.0. This affects an unknown part. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, especially law enforcement agencies or municipal authorities using the code-projects Traffic Offense Reporting System, this vulnerability could allow attackers to perform unauthorized actions such as submitting false traffic offense reports or manipulating existing records. This could undermine the integrity of traffic enforcement data, potentially leading to wrongful penalties or administrative confusion. While the confidentiality and availability impacts are minimal, the integrity compromise could damage trust in traffic reporting systems and cause operational disruptions. Additionally, since the system likely handles personal data of drivers and offenders, any manipulation could have privacy implications under GDPR if inaccurate or fraudulent data is processed. The public disclosure of the vulnerability increases the risk of exploitation attempts, particularly targeting European countries with widespread adoption of this system or similar platforms. The medium severity rating suggests the threat is moderate but should not be ignored, especially given the critical nature of traffic enforcement data.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 18:11 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats