CVE-2025-59827VulnerabilityPublished 24 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59827: FlagForgeCTF flagForge · Missing Authorization

Affects FlagForgeCTF flagForgeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High · fixed in 2.2.0 : patch FlagForgeCTF flagForge soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.0

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 24 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 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 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
FlagForgeCTF flagForge	Affected =2.1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade Flag Forge installations from version 2.1.0 to version 2.2.0 or later, where the authorization checks on the /api/admin/assign-badge endpoint have been properly implemented. Until the upgrade is applied, it is critical to restrict access to the platform to trusted users only and monitor logs for any suspicious badge assignment activities. Implement network-level controls such as IP whitelisting or VPN access to limit exposure. Additionally, enforce strong authentication mechanisms, including multi-factor authentication (MFA), to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Regularly audit user privileges and badge assignments to detect unauthorized privilege escalations. For organizations developing or customizing CTF platforms, it is recommended to conduct thorough authorization testing on all administrative endpoints to prevent similar issues. Finally, maintain an incident response plan to quickly address any detected exploitation attempts.

Description

Flag Forge is a Capture The Flag (CTF) platform. In version 2.1.0, the /api/admin/assign-badge endpoint lacks proper access control, allowing any authenticated user to assign high-privilege badges (e.g., Staff) to themselves. This could lead to privilege escalation and impersonation of administrative roles. This issue has been patched in version 2.2.0.

Impact

For European organizations using Flag Forge 2.1.0, especially those involved in cybersecurity training, education, or competitive events, this vulnerability poses significant risks. Unauthorized privilege escalation could allow malicious insiders or external attackers who gain access to user credentials to impersonate administrators. This could lead to manipulation or deletion of competition data, unfair advantage in CTF events, or disruption of training activities. Additionally, administrative impersonation could facilitate further attacks, such as injecting malicious content or accessing sensitive user information. The integrity of the platform and trust in its fairness and security could be severely compromised. Organizations relying on Flag Forge for internal training or public competitions may face reputational damage and operational disruptions if this vulnerability is exploited. Given the platform’s role in cybersecurity skill development, exploitation could also undermine confidence in training outcomes and certifications.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/FlagForgeCTF/flagForge/security/advisories/GHSA-7944-xvv7-cv79 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 24 Sep 2025, 20:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats