VulnerabilityPublished 2 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-58405: CGM CLININET · Clickjacking

Affects CGM CLININETSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 2025.MS3 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 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 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2025.MS3

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

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

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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 CGM CLININET to 2025.MS3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
CGMCGM CLININET	Affected <2025.MS3	Fixed in 2025.MS3

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement multiple layers of defense: 1) Deploy HTTP security headers such as X-Frame-Options with the value DENY or SAMEORIGIN, or use Content-Security-Policy (CSP) frame-ancestors directives to restrict which domains can embed the application in frames. 2) Incorporate HTML-based frame-busting JavaScript code that detects framing and breaks out of iframes when unauthorized embedding is detected. 3) Review and strengthen CSRF/XSRF protections by ensuring tokens are validated server-side and are tied to user sessions and actions. 4) Educate users about the risks of clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted websites that could host malicious iframes. 5) Monitor web traffic and logs for unusual iframe embedding or suspicious user activity that may indicate attempted clickjacking. 6) Engage with the vendor CGM for official patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 7) Consider implementing Content Security Policy with strict framing rules and enabling browser security features that limit iframe usage. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on specific HTTP headers and application-level defenses tailored to the CGM CLININET environment.

Description

The CGM CLININET application does not implement any mechanisms that prevent clickjacking attacks, neither HTTP security headers nor HTML-based frame‑busting protections were detected. As a result, an attacker can embed the application inside a maliciously crafted IFRAME and trick users into performing unintended actions, including potentially bypassing CSRF/XSRF defenses.

Impact

The impact of this vulnerability is significant for organizations using CGM CLININET, particularly in healthcare environments where the application is likely used for sensitive patient data and clinical workflows. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized actions performed on behalf of legitimate users, potentially altering patient records, submitting incorrect data, or triggering unintended clinical processes. The ability to bypass CSRF protections increases the risk of session manipulation and unauthorized transactions. While the vulnerability does not directly expose data confidentiality or system availability, the integrity of clinical operations and data accuracy can be compromised, which may have downstream effects on patient safety and regulatory compliance. Additionally, the attack requires user interaction, which may limit large-scale automated exploitation but still poses a risk through targeted phishing or social engineering campaigns. Organizations worldwide relying on CGM CLININET face reputational damage, legal liabilities, and operational disruptions if this vulnerability is exploited.

CWE-1021Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain.
Implementation
Use the "frame-ancestors" directive in the Content Security Policy, which is intended to define restrictions when it comes to allowing embedded content.
Implementation
The use of X-Frame-Options (now partially obsolete as of September 2026) allows developers of web content to restrict the usage of their application within the form of overlays, frames, or iFrames. The developer can indicate from which domains can frame the content.
Implementation
Use a "frame-breaker" script in each page that should not be framed. This is very helpful for legacy browsers that do not support the X-Frame-Options security feature previously mentioned (which is now partially obsolete).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.7 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Clickjacking (opens in a new tab)
Flash File Overlay (opens in a new tab)
iFrame Overlay (opens in a new tab)
Task Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Tapjacking (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 2 Mar 2026, 11:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1021

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats