VulnerabilityPublished 27 Sep 2025Updated 29 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59932: FlagForgeCTF flagForge · Improper Access Control

Affects FlagForgeCTF flagForgeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High · fixed in 2.3.1 : patch FlagForgeCTF flagForge soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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 2.3.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 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 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

AI-suggested

European organizations using Flag Forge should immediately verify their platform version and upgrade to version 2.3.1 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, organizations should restrict network access to the /api/resources endpoint using firewall rules or API gateways to allow only trusted IP addresses or authenticated users. Implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to block unauthorized POST and DELETE requests to this endpoint can provide temporary protection. Regularly audit access logs for suspicious activity targeting the /api/resources endpoint. Additionally, organizations should enforce strong authentication and authorization mechanisms on all API endpoints and conduct security reviews of custom integrations or plugins that interact with Flag Forge APIs. Finally, educating administrators and users about the risks and signs of exploitation can aid in early detection and response.

Description

Flag Forge is a Capture The Flag (CTF) platform. From versions 2.0.0 to before 2.3.1, the /api/resources endpoint previously allowed POST and DELETE requests without proper authentication or authorization. This could have enabled unauthorized users to create, modify, or delete resources on the platform. The issue has been fixed in FlagForge version 2.3.1.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those involved in cybersecurity education, training, or competitions, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Many universities, cybersecurity training centers, and private companies use CTF platforms like Flag Forge to develop skills and evaluate security postures. Exploitation could allow attackers to tamper with challenge content, potentially invalidating competition results or misleading participants. Additionally, unauthorized resource manipulation could lead to denial of service or data integrity issues within the platform. Given the collaborative and educational nature of CTFs, such disruptions could undermine trust and operational continuity. Organizations relying on Flag Forge for internal or public-facing events may face reputational damage and operational setbacks if this vulnerability is exploited. Moreover, since the flaw requires no authentication or user interaction, it can be exploited remotely with minimal effort, increasing the threat surface.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/FlagForgeCTF/flagForge/security/advisories/GHSA-v8rh-25rf-gfqw (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Oct 2025, 00:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats