VulnerabilityPublished 24 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-60954: Microweber CMS · Weak Password Requirements

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.3High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 24 Oct 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

Organizations should immediately enforce strong password policies within Microweber CMS, including minimum password length (e.g., at least 12 characters), complexity requirements (mix of uppercase, lowercase, numbers, and symbols), and disallowing common or easily guessable passwords. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all user accounts, especially administrators, is critical to reduce the risk of account compromise. Regularly audit user accounts for weak passwords and reset them proactively. Monitor authentication logs for unusual login attempts or brute force activity. If possible, update or patch the CMS once a fix is released by the vendor. Additionally, consider restricting password reset functionality to verified users and employing CAPTCHA or rate limiting to prevent automated attacks. Educate users on the importance of strong passwords and secure credential management.

Description

Microweber CMS 2.0 has Weak Password Requirements. The application does not enforce minimum password length or complexity during password resets. Users can set extremely weak passwords, including single-character passwords, which can lead to account compromise, including administrative accounts.

Impact

For European organizations using Microweber CMS 2.0, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, disruption of web services, and potential compromise of backend systems if administrative accounts are hijacked. The impact is particularly severe for organizations that rely on the CMS for critical communications, e-commerce, or data management. Attackers exploiting weak passwords could manipulate website content, inject malicious code, or exfiltrate confidential information. This could result in reputational damage, regulatory penalties under GDPR due to data breaches, and financial losses. The ease of exploitation increases the likelihood of automated attacks targeting vulnerable installations across Europe. Organizations with limited cybersecurity maturity or without multi-factor authentication are at heightened risk.

CWE-521Weak Password Requirements (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.
Architecture and Design
A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length; Restrictions against password reuse; Restrictions against using…
Architecture and Design
Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
Implementation
Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V2.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Dictionary-based Password Attack (opens in a new tab)
Password Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Kerberoasting (opens in a new tab)
Rainbow Table Password Cracking (opens in a new tab)
Remote Services with Stolen Credentials (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 24 Oct 2025, 20:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-521

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats