CVE-2025-57821VulnerabilityPublished 27 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-57821: basecamp google_sign_in · Open Redirect

Affects basecamp google_sign_inSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium : upgrade to 1.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.3.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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 on 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 27 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade basecamp google_sign_in to 1.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
basecamp google_sign_in	Affected <1.3.0	Fixed in 1.3.0

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade the Basecamp google_sign_in library to version 1.3.0 or later immediately to apply the official patch that fixes the open redirect vulnerability. 2. For applications where upgrading is not immediately possible, explicitly set the SameSite attribute on session cookies to Lax or Strict to prevent session cookie injection and reduce the risk of chained attacks. 3. Implement strict input validation and URL whitelisting on redirect parameters to ensure only trusted URLs are used in redirects. 4. Educate users about the risks of clicking on suspicious links and implement anti-phishing measures such as email filtering and link scanning. 5. Monitor application logs for unusual redirect patterns or suspicious URL parameters that could indicate exploitation attempts. 6. Conduct security code reviews and penetration testing focused on authentication and session management components to identify and remediate related weaknesses.

Description

Basecamp's Google Sign-In adds Google sign-in to Rails applications. Prior to version 1.3.0, it is possible to craft a malformed URL that passes the "same origin" check, resulting in the user being redirected to another origin. Rails applications configured to store the flash information in a session cookie may be vulnerable, if this can be chained with an attack that allows injection of arbitrary data into the session cookie. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0. If upgrading is not possible at this time, a way to mitigate the chained attack can be done by explicitly setting SameSite=Lax or SameSite=Strict on the application session cookie.

Impact

For European organizations using Ruby on Rails applications with the Basecamp google_sign_in library versions older than 1.3.0, this vulnerability could facilitate phishing attacks by redirecting users to malicious external sites that appear to be legitimate. This could lead to credential theft, session hijacking, or delivery of malware. Organizations that rely on flash messages stored in session cookies are at higher risk if attackers can inject data into these cookies, potentially compromising user sessions and data integrity. The impact on confidentiality and integrity is limited but non-negligible, especially for applications handling sensitive user data or financial transactions. The vulnerability does not affect availability directly but could undermine user trust and lead to reputational damage. Since the vulnerability requires user interaction, the risk is somewhat mitigated by user awareness and training but remains significant in environments with high user turnover or less security-conscious users.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Aug 2025, 17:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats