CVE-2025-62509VulnerabilityPublished 20 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-62509: error311 FileRise · Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges

Affects error311 FileRiseSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 1.4.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 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 2026-10-26.

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

Upgrade error311/FileRise to 1.4.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHuberror311/FileRise`pkg:github/error311/FileRise`Other threats	Affected <1.4.0	Fixed in 1.4.0

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade FileRise installations to version 1.4.0 or later, with version 1.5.0 recommended for enhanced security. Until upgrades are applied, implement strict access controls by restricting non-admin users to read-only permissions and disabling delete, rename, and move APIs server-side for these users. Avoid using folder names that directly correspond to usernames or other predictable identifiers to reduce the risk of IDOR exploitation. Implement server-side authorization checks that explicitly verify file and folder ownership before permitting any modification or deletion operations. Conduct thorough audits of existing file permissions and folder structures to identify and remediate potential exposure. Employ monitoring and alerting on file operation endpoints to detect unusual activity indicative of exploitation attempts. Educate administrators and users about the risks of this vulnerability and enforce policies to minimize privilege escalation. Finally, integrate this vulnerability into vulnerability management and patching workflows to ensure timely updates and continuous security posture improvement.

Description

FileRise is a self-hosted web-based file manager with multi-file upload, editing, and batch operations. Prior to version 1.4.0, a business logic flaw in FileRise’s file/folder handling allows low-privilege users to perform unauthorized operations (view/delete/modify) on files created by other users. The root cause was inferring ownership/visibility from folder names (e.g., a folder named after a username) and missing server-side authorization/ownership checks across file operation endpoints. This amounted to an IDOR pattern: an attacker could operate on resources identified only by predictable names. This issue has been patched in version 1.4.0 and further hardened in version 1.5.0. A workaround for this issue involves restricting non-admin users to read-only or disable delete/rename APIs server-side, avoid creating top-level folders named after other usernames, and adding server-side checks that verify ownership before delete/rename/move.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-62509 can be substantial, particularly for those relying on FileRise for internal file management and collaboration. Unauthorized access to files can lead to data breaches, exposing sensitive or confidential information, which may violate GDPR and other data protection regulations, resulting in legal and financial penalties. The ability to delete or modify files owned by other users threatens data integrity and can disrupt business operations, especially if critical documents are altered or removed. This vulnerability undermines trust in internal file sharing systems and may facilitate insider threats or lateral movement by malicious actors. SMEs and enterprises using self-hosted solutions without rigorous access controls are particularly vulnerable. The lack of user interaction and low complexity of exploitation increase the likelihood of automated attacks or insider misuse. Additionally, compromised file integrity can affect audit trails and compliance reporting, further complicating incident response and recovery efforts.

CWE-280Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
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.
Implementation
Always check to see if you have successfully accessed a resource or system functionality, and use proper error handling if it is unsuccessful. Do this even when you are operating in a highly privileged mode, because errors or environmental conditions might still cause a failure.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Oct 2025, 17:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-280, CWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats