VulnerabilityPublished 16 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-61541: Webmin · Improper Access Control

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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:L/I:N/A:H

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

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 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

To mitigate CVE-2025-61541, organizations should implement several specific measures beyond generic advice: 1) Restrict access to Webmin interfaces using network-level controls such as VPNs, IP whitelisting, or firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted networks only. 2) Implement strict validation and filtering of HTTP Host headers at the web server or reverse proxy level to reject or sanitize suspicious header values before they reach Webmin. 3) Educate users and administrators about phishing risks, emphasizing caution when clicking password reset links and verifying URLs carefully. 4) Monitor logs for unusual password reset requests or Host header anomalies that may indicate exploitation attempts. 5) If possible, temporarily disable the password reset functionality or replace it with an out-of-band reset process until a patch is available. 6) Keep Webmin installations updated and subscribe to vendor advisories to apply patches promptly once released. 7) Employ multi-factor authentication (MFA) for Webmin accounts to reduce the impact of credential compromise. 8) Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block Host header injection attempts. These targeted actions will reduce the attack surface and limit the potential for successful exploitation.

Description

Webmin 2.510 is vulnerable to a Host Header Injection in the password reset functionality (forgot_send.cgi). The reset link sent to users is constructed using the HTTP Host header via get_webmin_email_url(). An attacker can manipulate the Host header to inject a malicious domain into the reset email. If a victim follows the poisoned link, the attacker can intercept the reset token and gain full control of the target account.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-61541 on European organizations can be substantial, particularly for those relying on Webmin 2.510 for system administration. Successful exploitation allows attackers to hijack user accounts by intercepting password reset tokens, leading to full account takeover. This compromises confidentiality, as attackers gain access to sensitive system configurations and data. Integrity is affected because attackers can alter system settings, install backdoors, or create persistent access. Availability may also be impacted if attackers disrupt system operations or lock out legitimate administrators. The vulnerability's exploitation requires no authentication but does require user interaction, making phishing campaigns a likely attack vector. European organizations with exposed Webmin interfaces, especially in sectors like finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, face elevated risks. The ability to control administrative accounts could facilitate lateral movement within networks, data exfiltration, or deployment of ransomware. The absence of patches increases the window of exposure. Given the widespread use of Webmin in Europe and the critical nature of systems it manages, the potential operational and reputational damage is significant.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Oct 2025, 15:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats