CVE-2025-61931VulnerabilityPublished 24 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-61931: Implem Pleasanter · Cross-site scripting (XSS)

Affects Implem PleasanterSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within 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 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

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Immediately audit and restrict user privileges in Pleasanter to the minimum necessary, reducing the risk of malicious input submission. 2) Apply strict input validation and output encoding on the Body, Description, and Comments fields to neutralize malicious scripts; if the vendor has not released patches, implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block common XSS payloads targeting these fields. 3) Monitor logs for unusual activity or repeated input of suspicious scripts. 4) Educate users about the risks of clicking on untrusted links or content within Pleasanter. 5) Segregate Pleasanter instances from critical networks to limit lateral movement if exploitation occurs. 6) Engage with Implem Inc. for timely patching and verify updates before deployment. 7) Consider deploying Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict script execution sources. These targeted steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific vulnerable components and operational context of Pleasanter.

Description

Pleasanter contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in Body, Description and Comments, which allows an attacker to execute an arbitrary script in a logged-in user's web browser.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, session hijacking, and potential privilege escalation within the Pleasanter application. Since Pleasanter is often used for project management and collaboration, exploitation could compromise business workflows and confidential data. The requirement for authenticated access limits the attack surface but insider threats or compromised accounts could be leveraged. The integrity of data could be undermined by unauthorized script execution, potentially enabling attackers to manipulate content or perform actions on behalf of users. Although availability is not directly affected, the resulting trust erosion and potential data breaches could have regulatory and reputational consequences, especially under GDPR. Organizations in sectors such as finance, government, and critical infrastructure using Pleasanter are particularly at risk due to the sensitivity of their data and regulatory scrutiny.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 31 Oct 2025, 07:37 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats