VulnerabilityPublished 20 Nov 2025Updated 26 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64027: Snipe-IT · Cross-site Scripting

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% 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:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 20 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

Apply any available patches or updates from Snipe-IT as soon as they are released.
If patches are not yet available, restrict access to the CSV Import functionality to only highly trusted administrators and limit network access to the Snipe-IT admin interface using firewalls or VPNs.
Enforce strict HTTPS usage with certificate pinning or strict transport security to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks that enable request interception and modification.
Implement Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the execution of unauthorized scripts in the admin interface.
Monitor administrative activity logs for unusual behavior or repeated failed CSV imports that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Educate administrators about the risks of interacting with untrusted CSV files and the importance of verifying network security.
Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block reflected XSS payloads targeting the import workflow.
Review and harden the input validation and output encoding mechanisms in the CSV import feature once source code access is available.

Description

Snipe-IT v8.3.4 (build 20218) contains a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the CSV Import workflow. When an invalid CSV file is uploaded, the application returns a progress_message value that is rendered as raw HTML in the admin interface. An attacker can intercept and modify the POST /livewire/update request to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript into the progress_message. Because the server accepts the modified input without sanitization and reflects it back to the user, arbitrary JavaScript executes in the browser of any authenticated admin who views the import page. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because the report only demonstrates that an authenticated user can choose to conduct a man-in-the-middle attack against himself.

Impact

For European organizations using Snipe-IT as an asset management solution, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of authenticated admin users, potentially leading to session hijacking, theft of sensitive information, or unauthorized administrative actions. Given that Snipe-IT is often used to manage IT assets and licenses, compromise could lead to broader operational disruptions or data leakage. However, the requirement for authentication and the need for the attacker to intercept and modify requests (man-in-the-middle) reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation. Organizations with strict network segmentation and encrypted communications (e.g., HTTPS with proper certificate validation) are less vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, further mitigating risk. Nonetheless, insider threats or compromised internal networks could increase exposure. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited active targeting so far, but the vulnerability should be addressed promptly to prevent future exploitation.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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 · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (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 27 Nov 2025, 18:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats