VulnerabilityPublished 15 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66407: WeblateOrg weblate · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects WeblateOrg weblateSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.0 Medium : upgrade to 5.15 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.15

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 15 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 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 weblateorg/weblate to 5.15.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubweblateorg/weblate`pkg:github/weblateorg/weblate`Other threats	Affected <5.15	Fixed in 5.15

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade Weblate to version 5.15 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by proper validation and sanitization of repository URLs. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, administrators should remove the Mercurial backend from the VCS_BACKENDS configuration to disable the vulnerable functionality. Additionally, organizations should enforce strict access controls and monitoring on Weblate instances to detect suspicious activity. Network segmentation should be employed to limit Weblate server access to internal services and metadata endpoints. Implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SSRF attempts targeting internal IP ranges and file protocols can provide additional protection. Regular auditing of user privileges and multi-factor authentication can reduce the risk of account compromise. Finally, reviewing and restricting error message verbosity to avoid leaking sensitive internal response data is recommended.

Description

Weblate is a web based localization tool. The Create Component functionality in Weblate allows authorized users to add new translation components by specifying both a version control system and a source code repository URL to pull from. However, prior to version 5.15, the repository URL field is not validated or sanitized, allowing an attacker to supply arbitrary protocols, hostnames, and IP addresses, including localhost, internal network addresses, and local filenames. When the Mercurial version control system is selected, Weblate exposes the full server-side HTTP response for the provided URL. This effectively creates a server-side request forgery (SSRF) primitive that can probe internal services and return their contents. In addition to accessing internal HTTP endpoints, the behavior also enables local file enumeration by attempting file:// requests. While file contents may not always be returned, the application’s error messages clearly differentiate between files that exist and files that do not, revealing information about the server’s filesystem layout. In cloud environments, this behavior is particularly dangerous, as internal-only endpoints such as cloud metadata services may be accessible, potentially leading to credential disclosure and full environment compromise. This has been addressed in the Weblate 5.15 release. As a workaround, remove Mercurial from `VCS_BACKENDS`; the Git backend is not affected. The Git backend was already configured to block the file protocol and does not expose the HTTP response content in the error message.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those using Weblate in cloud or hybrid environments with Mercurial enabled. Exploitation can lead to internal network reconnaissance, exposing sensitive internal services and infrastructure details. The ability to enumerate local files can reveal server filesystem structure, aiding further attacks. In cloud deployments, access to metadata services can result in credential theft, enabling attackers to escalate privileges and compromise the entire environment. This can disrupt localization workflows, leak intellectual property, and potentially lead to broader network compromise. Organizations relying on Weblate for critical translation and localization tasks may face operational disruptions and data confidentiality breaches. The requirement for authenticated access limits exposure but insider threats or compromised accounts could exploit this vulnerability. Given the widespread use of Weblate in software development and localization across Europe, the impact is non-trivial, particularly for sectors with sensitive data such as finance, government, and technology.

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 23 Dec 2025, 00:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats