CVE-2025-59843VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2025Updated 28 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-59843: FlagForgeCTF flagForge · Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor

Affects FlagForgeCTF flagForgeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium · fixed in 2.3.2 : update FlagForgeCTF flagForge when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.3.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: Low
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent 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 26 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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade all flagForge instances to version 2.3.2 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by removing email addresses from the public API responses. Since no workarounds exist, patching is mandatory. Organizations should also audit their current user data exposure to assess the extent of information disclosed. Implementing network-level access controls or API gateways to restrict access to the /api/user/[username] endpoint could provide temporary risk reduction but may impact platform functionality. Monitoring for unusual API access patterns can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should educate users about phishing risks and implement strong email filtering and anti-phishing technologies to mitigate the impact of exposed email addresses. Reviewing and updating privacy policies and incident response plans to address potential data exposure incidents is advisable. Finally, maintain regular updates and vulnerability management practices to promptly address future security issues.

Description

Flag Forge is a Capture The Flag (CTF) platform. From versions 2.0.0 to before 2.3.2, the public endpoint /api/user/[username] returns user email addresses in its JSON response. The fix, intended for release in 2.3.1 but only available starting in version 2.3.2, removes email addresses from public API responses while keeping the endpoint publicly accessible. Users should upgrade to version 2.3.2 or later to eliminate exposure. There are no workarounds for this vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing flagForge for CTF events, this vulnerability poses a privacy risk by exposing user email addresses publicly. The unauthorized disclosure can lead to increased phishing attacks, spear-phishing, and social engineering targeting employees or participants, potentially resulting in credential theft or malware infections. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise system integrity or availability, the indirect consequences of successful phishing can be severe, including data breaches or network compromise. Organizations subject to GDPR and other data protection regulations face compliance risks due to the exposure of personal data, which could result in regulatory penalties and reputational damage. The impact is particularly significant for organizations hosting large-scale or public CTF events with many participants, increasing the volume of exposed personal information. Additionally, the vulnerability could undermine trust in the platform and the organization's cybersecurity posture. Prompt remediation is critical to mitigate these risks and maintain compliance with European data privacy standards.

CWE-359Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly prevent a person's private, personal information from being accessed by actors who either (1) are not explicitly authorized to access the information or (2) do not have the implicit consent of the person about whom the information is collected.
Requirements
Identify and consult all relevant regulations for personal privacy. An organization may be required to comply with certain federal and state regulations, depending on its location, the type of business it conducts, and the nature of any private data it handles.
Architecture and Design
Carefully evaluate how secure design may interfere with privacy, and vice versa. Security and privacy concerns often seem to compete with each other. From a security perspective, all important operations should be recorded so that any anomalous activity can later be identified.
Implementation · Operation · Attack Surface Reduction
Some tools can automatically analyze documents to redact, strip, or "sanitize" private information, although some human review might be necessary. Tools may vary in terms of which document formats can be processed.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V10.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Evercookie (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Probe iOS Screenshots (opens in a new tab)
Shoulder Surfing (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Jan 2026, 08:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-359

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats