CVE-2025-61536VulnerabilityPublished 16 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-61536: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 16 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 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

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement strict validation or hardcoding of the Host header when generating absolute URLs, avoiding reliance on user-controlled headers. Password reset links should always use HTTPS to ensure encryption in transit. Review and update proxy and load balancer configurations to ensure they do not forward or allow manipulation of the Host header without validation. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious Host header manipulations. Additionally, implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the impact of compromised credentials. Conduct code reviews and security testing to identify similar issues in other parts of the application. Finally, monitor logs for unusual password reset requests or Host header anomalies to detect potential exploitation attempts early.

Description

FelixRiddle dev-jobs-handlebars 1.0 uses absolute password-reset (magic) links using the untrusted `req.headers.host` header and forces the `http://` scheme. An attacker who can control the `Host` header (or exploit a misconfigured proxy/load-balancer that forwards the header unchanged) can cause reset links to point to attacker-controlled domains or be delivered via insecure HTTP, enabling token theft, phishing, and account takeover.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability can lead to severe security breaches including unauthorized access to user accounts through stolen password reset tokens. The exploitation could facilitate phishing campaigns where users are tricked into clicking malicious reset links, compromising user credentials and organizational data. Organizations relying on FelixRiddle dev-jobs-handlebars or similar frameworks that do not validate Host headers are at risk. The use of HTTP rather than HTTPS exacerbates the risk by enabling token interception via network sniffing, especially in environments with untrusted networks or insufficient TLS enforcement. This could impact sectors with sensitive user data such as finance, healthcare, and government services. Additionally, organizations using proxies or load balancers that do not sanitize or validate Host headers increase their exposure. The breach of user accounts can lead to data leaks, reputational damage, regulatory penalties under GDPR, and operational disruptions.

CWE-620Unverified Password Change (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When setting a new password for a user, the product does not require knowledge of the original password, or using another form of authentication.
Architecture and Design
When prompting for a password change, force the user to provide the original password in addition to the new password.
Architecture and Design
Do not use "forgotten password" functionality. But if you must, ensure that you are only providing information to the actual user, e.g. by using an email address or challenge question that the legitimate user already provided in the past; do not allow the current user to change this identity information until the…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Choosing and Using Security Questions (opens in a new tab)
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
Credential Stuffing Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V2.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.1.5 (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 16 Oct 2025, 15:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-620

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats