CVE-2025-59040VulnerabilityPublished 18 Sep 2025Updated 22 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59040: Enalean tuleap · Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges

Affects Enalean tuleapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 16.11.99.1757427600 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.11.99.1757427600

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 18 Sep 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 Enalean tuleap to 16.11.99.1757427600.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Enalean tuleap	Affected <16.11.99.1757427600	Fixed in 16.11.99.1757427600

AI-suggested

European organizations should promptly upgrade affected Tuleap instances to the fixed versions: Community Edition 16.11.99.1757427600 or Enterprise Editions 16.11-6 and 16.10-8. Until upgrades are applied, administrators should review and tighten access controls and permissions on trackers and backlog items to minimize exposure. Implement strict role-based access control (RBAC) policies and audit user permissions regularly to ensure users have only the minimum necessary privileges. Monitoring and logging access to backlog items and trackers can help detect unauthorized access attempts. Additionally, organizations should educate users about the sensitivity of project metadata and enforce policies to limit sharing of tracker information outside authorized personnel. Network segmentation and limiting Tuleap access to trusted internal networks can further reduce exposure to external attackers.

Description

Tuleap is an Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. Backlog item representations do not verify the permissions of the child trackers. Users might see tracker names they should not have access to. This vulnerability is fixed in Tuleap Community Edition 16.11.99.1757427600 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.11-6 and 16.10-8.

Impact

For European organizations using Tuleap, especially those involved in software development and project management, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive project information. Although the exposure is limited to tracker names and does not allow data modification or system disruption, leaking project structure details could aid attackers in reconnaissance efforts or internal threat actors in gaining insights into project workflows and priorities. This could be particularly impactful for organizations handling sensitive or proprietary software projects, government agencies, or critical infrastructure sectors where project confidentiality is paramount. The medium severity indicates a moderate risk, but the lack of known exploits and the requirement for some level of authenticated access reduce the immediate threat level. Nonetheless, organizations should consider the potential for insider threats or lateral movement scenarios where this information leakage could be leveraged.

CWE-280Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Always check to see if you have successfully accessed a resource or system functionality, and use proper error handling if it is unsuccessful. Do this even when you are operating in a highly privileged mode, because errors or environmental conditions might still cause a failure.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (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 26 Sep 2025, 00:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-280

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats