VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2025Updated 18 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-63712: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 10 Nov 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-2025-63712, organizations should implement robust CSRF protections in the affected application. This includes adding anti-CSRF tokens to all state-changing requests, especially those that delete or modify user accounts, and verifying these tokens server-side before processing requests. Changing the HTTP method for deletion operations from GET to POST or DELETE can reduce risk, as GET requests should be idempotent and safe. Additionally, validating the HTTP Referer or Origin headers can help ensure requests originate from trusted sources. Enforcing multi-factor authentication and session timeout policies can reduce the window of opportunity for exploitation. Regularly auditing user management logs for unexpected deletions and educating users about phishing and social engineering risks are also recommended. If possible, updating or patching the Product Expiry Management System to a version that addresses this vulnerability is ideal, though no patches are currently available. Network-level protections such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious cross-origin requests targeting the delete-user.php endpoint.

Description

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in SourceCodester Product Expiry Management System. The User Management module (delete-user.php) allows remote attackers to delete arbitrary user accounts via forged cross-origin GET requests because the endpoint relies solely on session cookies and lacks CSRF protection.

Impact

For European organizations using the SourceCodester Product Expiry Management System, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized deletion of user accounts, potentially leading to disruption of user management workflows and administrative operations. Such disruptions could affect internal processes reliant on user roles and permissions, causing operational delays or loss of access for legitimate users. While the vulnerability does not directly impact confidentiality or availability, the integrity compromise could facilitate further attacks if critical administrative accounts are removed. Organizations with complex user hierarchies or those relying heavily on this system for product expiry management may experience significant operational challenges. Additionally, the need for user interaction and authenticated sessions limits the attack scope but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with less stringent user awareness or where social engineering is feasible. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but does not preclude future exploitation.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (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 18 Nov 2025, 17:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats