CVE-2025-66296VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66296: getgrav grav · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects getgrav gravSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High · fixed in 1.8.0 : patch getgrav grav soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.8.0

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

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

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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 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 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgetgrav/grav`pkg:github/getgrav/grav`Other threats	Affected =1.8.0-beta.27	Fixed in–

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 Grav CMS installations to version 1.8.0-beta.27 or later immediately to apply the official fix that enforces username uniqueness validation. 2. Restrict the 'create user' permission to only highly trusted administrators to minimize the attack surface. 3. Implement monitoring and alerting on user account creation events, especially for duplicate or suspicious usernames. 4. Conduct regular audits of user accounts to detect and remove any unauthorized duplicates or suspicious accounts. 5. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block attempts to create duplicate usernames if patching is delayed. 6. Educate administrators and users about the risks of privilege escalation and enforce strong password policies. 7. Consider isolating Grav admin interfaces behind VPNs or IP whitelisting to reduce exposure. 8. Maintain comprehensive backups of Grav site files and configurations to enable rapid recovery in case of compromise. 9. Review and tighten access controls and permissions within Grav and the hosting environment to limit lateral movement post-exploitation.

Description

Grav is a file-based Web platform. Prior to 1.8.0-beta.27, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Grav’s Admin plugin due to the absence of username uniqueness validation when creating users. A user with the create user permission can create a new account using the same username as an existing administrator account, set a new password/email, and then log in as that administrator. This effectively allows privilege escalation from limited user-manager permissions to full administrator access. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.0-beta.27.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant threat to the security of websites and web applications built on Grav CMS. Successful exploitation results in full administrator control, enabling attackers to modify content, steal sensitive data, inject malicious code, or disrupt services. This can lead to reputational damage, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR violations due to data exposure), and financial losses. The file-based nature of Grav means that compromised administrator accounts can manipulate site files directly, increasing the risk of persistent backdoors or malware implants. Organizations relying on Grav for public-facing or internal portals are particularly vulnerable. The ease of exploitation and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability make this a critical concern. Additionally, the lack of known exploits in the wild suggests that timely patching can prevent widespread attacks, but delayed response could lead to targeted or opportunistic exploitation. European entities with limited security resources or delayed patch management processes are at heightened risk.

CWE-266Incorrect Privilege Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (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 8 Dec 2025, 22:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-266

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats