VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2025Updated 2 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-58067: 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 1.3.1 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 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 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.3.1

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 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 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 basecamp google_sign_in to 1.3.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
basecamp google_sign_in	Affected <1.3.1	Fixed in 1.3.1

AI-suggested

The only effective mitigation is to upgrade the google_sign_in gem to version 1.3.1 or later, where the vulnerability has been patched. Since no workarounds exist, organizations should prioritize dependency management and patching processes to ensure timely updates. Additionally, developers should audit OAuth2 request parameter handling to prevent manipulation that could be chained with this open redirect. Implementing strict validation and whitelisting of redirect URLs within the application can further reduce risk. Web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious redirect patterns or unusual OAuth2 parameter modifications. User education on phishing risks and monitoring for unusual authentication flows can also help mitigate exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should conduct security testing and code reviews focusing on session management and redirect handling in authentication flows.

Description

Basecamp's Google Sign-In adds Google sign-in to Rails applications. Prior to version 1.3.1, it is possible to redirect a user to another origin if the "proceed_to" value in the session store is set to a protocol-relative URL. Normally the value of this URL is only written and read by the library or the calling application. However, it may be possible to set this session value from a malicious site with a form submission. Any Rails applications using the google_sign_in gem may be vulnerable, if this vector can be chained with another attack that is able to modify the OAuth2 request parameters. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.1. There are no workarounds.

Impact

For European organizations using Ruby on Rails applications that integrate Google Sign-In via the vulnerable versions of the basecamp google_sign_in gem, this vulnerability could enable attackers to redirect users to malicious websites. This could facilitate phishing attacks, credential theft, or drive-by downloads by exploiting user trust in the legitimate application domain. Although the direct impact on confidentiality and integrity is rated low, the open redirect can be a critical component in multi-stage attacks, especially if combined with other OAuth2 parameter manipulation vulnerabilities. This could lead to unauthorized access or session hijacking in worst-case scenarios. The impact is particularly relevant for sectors with high reliance on web applications for user authentication, such as financial services, e-government portals, and healthcare providers in Europe. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the presence of this vulnerability in widely used authentication components necessitates prompt remediation to prevent potential exploitation.

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 7 Sep 2025, 00:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats