CVE-2025-63523VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-63523: cms · n/a

Affects cmsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% 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:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: 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 1 Dec 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubliufee/cms`pkg:github/liufee/cms`Other threats	Affected =2.1.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately verify if your organization uses FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 and assess exposure, especially for public-facing web applications. 2. Monitor official FeehiCMS channels for patches or security updates addressing CVE-2025-63523 and apply them promptly once available. 3. Implement network-level protections such as enforcing HTTPS with strong TLS configurations to prevent interception and tampering of parameters in transit. 4. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious parameter modifications related to usernames. 5. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on parameter tampering and input validation weaknesses. 6. Where possible, implement server-side validation and immutability checks for critical parameters to reject unauthorized changes. 7. Educate development teams on secure coding practices to avoid similar issues in future CMS versions or custom modules. 8. Consider isolating or restricting access to administrative interfaces to trusted networks or VPNs to reduce exposure. 9. Maintain comprehensive logging and monitoring to detect anomalous username changes or access patterns. 10. Prepare incident response plans to quickly address potential exploitation scenarios involving user account manipulation.

Description

FeehiCMS version 2.1.1 fails to enforce server-side immutability for parameters that are presented to clients as "read-only." An authenticated attacker can intercept and modify the parameter in transit and the backend accepts the changes. This can lead to unintended username changes.

Impact

For European organizations using FeehiCMS 2.1.1, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily to data integrity. Unauthorized username changes can disrupt user management, potentially allowing attackers to impersonate legitimate users or escalate privileges if usernames are linked to access controls. This could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive information or administrative functions. The lack of authentication requirement and ease of exploitation over the network increase the threat surface, especially for organizations with public-facing FeehiCMS installations. While availability is not impacted, the integrity compromise could undermine trust in the CMS and lead to reputational damage. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection regulations, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face compliance risks if user data integrity is compromised. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks. Proactive mitigation is essential to prevent exploitation and maintain secure user management.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (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 8 Dec 2025, 16:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats