CVE-2025-6105VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-6105: jflyfox jfinal_cms · Cross-Site Request Forgery

Affects jflyfox jfinal_cmsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable 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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Jun 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenjflyfox/jfinal_cms`pkg:maven/jflyfox/jfinal_cms`Other threats	Affected =5.0.1	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, enforce strict anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing requests, including logout actions, to ensure requests originate from legitimate user sessions. If modifying the CMS code is feasible, developers should add CSRF token validation in the HOME.java logout handler. Second, implement Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the domains from which scripts and forms can be loaded, reducing the risk of malicious request injection. Third, consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious CSRF patterns targeting the logout endpoint. Fourth, educate users about the risks of clicking unknown links and visiting untrusted websites while authenticated. Finally, monitor web server logs for unusual logout request patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. Organizations should also evaluate upgrading to a later, patched version of jfinal_cms once available or consider alternative CMS platforms with active security support.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in jflyfox jfinal_cms 5.0.1 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file HOME.java. The manipulation of the argument Logout leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations using jflyfox jfinal_cms 5.0.1, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized logout actions initiated by attackers, disrupting user sessions and potentially causing denial of service to legitimate users. While the direct confidentiality and data integrity impacts are limited, the forced logout could be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain, such as session fixation or social engineering campaigns. Organizations relying on jfinal_cms for critical web content management may experience service interruptions or user dissatisfaction. Additionally, if the CMS is integrated with other internal systems or workflows, repeated forced logouts could degrade operational efficiency. The lack of vendor response and patch availability increases the window of exposure. European entities with public-facing web portals using this CMS are particularly at risk, as attackers can exploit the vulnerability remotely without authentication. The impact is more operational than data breach-related but can still affect business continuity and user trust.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Jun 2025, 04:34 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats