CVE-2025-64117VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64117: Enalean tuleap · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Enalean tuleapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.6 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 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 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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify their Tuleap versions and upgrade to Community Edition 16.13.99.1761813675 or Enterprise Editions 16.13-5 / 16.12-8 or later to ensure CSRF protections are in place. In addition to patching, organizations should enforce strict access controls and least privilege principles to limit the number of users with permissions to modify SVN commit rules and immutable tags. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) can reduce the risk of compromised credentials being used to exploit this vulnerability. Security awareness training should emphasize the risks of CSRF and encourage cautious behavior regarding unsolicited links or requests while authenticated. Network-level protections such as web application firewalls (WAFs) can be tuned to detect and block suspicious CSRF attempts targeting Tuleap endpoints. Regular audits of repository settings and commit rules can help detect unauthorized changes early. Finally, organizations should monitor Tuleap security advisories for any updates or emerging exploit reports.

Description

Tuleap is an Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. Tuleap Community Edition prior to version 16.13.99.1761813675 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition prior to versions 16.13-5 and 16.12-8 don't have cross-site request forgery protection in the management of SVN commit rules and immutable tags. An attacker could use this vulnerability to trick victims into changing the commit rules or immutable tags of a SVN repo. Tuleap Community Edition 16.13.99.1761813675, Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.13-5, and Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.12-8 contain a fix for the issue.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on Tuleap for managing software development and SVN repositories, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized changes in repository commit rules or immutable tags. Such unauthorized modifications may disrupt development workflows, cause integration issues, or introduce risks by allowing unintended code changes or blocking legitimate ones. While the vulnerability does not directly expose sensitive data (no confidentiality impact), it undermines the integrity and availability of development processes, which can delay projects and increase operational risk. Organizations in sectors with strict software supply chain requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, may face compliance and operational challenges if exploited. The requirement for user interaction and privileges reduces the likelihood of widespread automated exploitation but does not eliminate targeted attacks, particularly in environments with less stringent access controls or user awareness.

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 19 Nov 2025, 19:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats