VulnerabilityPublished 12 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64482: Enalean tuleap · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Enalean tuleapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.6 Medium : upgrade to 16.13.99.1762267347 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 16.13.99.1762267347

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 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

Upgrade enalean/tuleap to 16.13.99.1762267347.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubenalean/tuleap`pkg:github/enalean/tuleap`Other threats	Affected <16.13.99.1762267347	Fixed in 16.13.99.1762267347

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 verify their Tuleap versions and upgrade to the patched releases: Community Edition 16.13.99.1762267347 or Enterprise Editions 17.0-1, 16.13-6, or 16.12-9. Where immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should implement compensating controls such as enforcing strict user authentication and session management policies to limit the risk of CSRF exploitation. Deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block suspicious CSRF-like requests targeting the file release system endpoints can provide interim protection. Educating users about the risks of clicking untrusted links and employing browser security features that mitigate CSRF (e.g., SameSite cookies) can reduce the likelihood of successful attacks. Additionally, auditing repository commit rules and immutable tags regularly for unauthorized changes can help detect exploitation attempts early. Organizations should also review and minimize the number of users with privileges to modify repository configurations to reduce the attack surface. Finally, integrating CSRF protection testing into regular security assessments of Tuleap deployments will help ensure ongoing resilience against similar vulnerabilities.

Description

Tuleap is an Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. Tuleap Community Edition prior to version 16.13.99.1762267347 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition prior to versions 17.01-, 16.13-6, and 16.12-9 don't have cross-site request forgery protections in the file release system. An attacker could use this vulnerability to trick victims into changing the commit rules or immutable tags of a SVN repo. Tuleap Community Edition 16.13.99.1762267347, Tuleap Enterprise Edition 17.0-1, Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.13-6, and Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.12-9 fix the issue.

Impact

For European organizations using Tuleap to manage software development, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized modifications of SVN repository commit rules or immutable tags. Such changes can undermine the integrity of the software development lifecycle by allowing malicious or unintended commits, potentially introducing vulnerabilities or disrupting release processes. The availability of repository functions could also be affected if immutable tags are altered improperly. This risk is particularly significant for organizations relying on Tuleap for critical or regulated software projects, including those in finance, healthcare, and government sectors across Europe. The medium severity rating indicates that while the vulnerability is not trivially exploitable without some user interaction and privileges, successful exploitation could cause moderate operational disruption and integrity loss. Given the collaborative nature of Tuleap, the impact could extend to multiple teams and projects within an organization, increasing the scope of potential damage. Additionally, the lack of confidentiality impact reduces the risk of data leakage but does not diminish the importance of maintaining repository integrity in compliance with European data governance and software assurance standards.

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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Nov 2025, 22:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats