CVE-2025-64499VulnerabilityPublished 8 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-64499: Enalean tuleap · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Enalean tuleapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.6 Medium : upgrade to 17.0.99.1762456922 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 17.0.99.1762456922

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 8 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade enalean/tuleap to 17.0.99.1762456922.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubenalean/tuleap`pkg:github/enalean/tuleap`Other threats	Affected <17.0.99.1762456922	Fixed in 17.0.99.1762456922

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

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade all affected Tuleap installations to the fixed versions: Community Edition 17.0.99.1762456922 or Enterprise Editions 17.0-2, 16.13-7, and 16.12-10 or later. 2. Implement and enforce strict anti-CSRF tokens on all API endpoints, especially those related to planning management, to ensure requests are legitimate and user-initiated. 3. Review and tighten session management policies, including shortening session lifetimes and enforcing secure cookie attributes (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite). 4. Educate users about the risks of CSRF and the importance of not interacting with suspicious links or web content while authenticated to Tuleap. 5. Monitor API logs for unusual or unauthorized plan modification activities to detect potential exploitation attempts early. 6. Restrict access to Tuleap management APIs via network controls such as IP whitelisting or VPN requirements where feasible. 7. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on web application vulnerabilities including CSRF. 8. Consider implementing multi-factor authentication to reduce risk from compromised credentials.

Description

Tuleap is a free and open source suite for management of software development and collaboration. Tuleap Community Editon versions prior to 17.0.99.1762456922 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition versions prior to 17.0-2, 16.13-7 and 16.12-10 are vulnerable to CSRF attacks through planning management API. Attackers have access to create, edit or remove plans. This issue is fixed in Tuleap Community Edition version 17.0.99.1762456922 and Tuleap Enterprise Edtion versions 17.0-2, 16.13-7 and 16.12-10.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-64499 centers on the integrity and availability of project planning data within Tuleap environments. Organizations relying on Tuleap for managing software development and collaboration could face unauthorized changes to project plans, leading to project delays, mismanagement, or loss of critical planning information. While confidentiality is not directly impacted, the disruption to workflows can have downstream effects on operational efficiency and trust in project management tools. Public sector entities, research institutions, and private companies using Tuleap with exposed or weakly protected user sessions are particularly vulnerable. The requirement for authenticated access and user interaction limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with insufficient session management or user training. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but underscores the importance of timely patching to prevent future exploitation. The vulnerability may also be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain targeting software development infrastructure.

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 16 Dec 2025, 06:00 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats