CVE-2025-5888VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-5888: jsnjfz WebStack-Guns · Cross-Site Request Forgery

Affects jsnjfz WebStack-GunsSource 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: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 63% 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 9 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
GitHubjsnjfz/WebStack-Guns`pkg:github/jsnjfz/WebStack-Guns`Other threats	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement compensating controls to mitigate the risk of CSRF attacks in WebStack-Guns 1.0. Specific recommendations include: 1) Implementing anti-CSRF tokens in all state-changing requests if possible, either by modifying the application code or using web application firewalls (WAFs) that support CSRF protection rules. 2) Enforcing SameSite cookie attributes (Strict or Lax) to limit cookie transmission in cross-site contexts, reducing CSRF attack surface. 3) Employing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the domains from which scripts and forms can be loaded or submitted. 4) Monitoring and logging unusual or unexpected state-changing requests to detect potential exploitation attempts. 5) Educating users about the risks of clicking unknown links or visiting untrusted websites while authenticated to critical applications. 6) Considering isolation of WebStack-Guns applications behind reverse proxies or gateways that can apply additional request validation. 7) Planning for migration or upgrade to a more secure version or alternative product once available. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on practical, layered defenses tailored to CSRF risks in the absence of vendor patches.

Description

A vulnerability was found in jsnjfz WebStack-Guns 1.0. It has been declared as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations using jsnjfz WebStack-Guns 1.0, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized actions being performed on their web applications without user consent. This could lead to unauthorized configuration changes, data manipulation, or transaction fraud depending on the affected functionality. Since the vulnerability requires no authentication and can be triggered remotely, attackers can leverage social engineering or malicious websites to exploit users. The medium severity suggests moderate risk, but the lack of vendor response and patch availability increases exposure. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on web applications—such as finance, e-commerce, healthcare, and government—could face operational disruptions or reputational damage if exploited. The vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or availability, but integrity violations could cascade into broader security incidents. European data protection regulations, including GDPR, require organizations to maintain secure systems; failure to address this vulnerability could lead to compliance issues if exploitation results in data integrity problems or unauthorized transactions.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 22:32 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats