VulnerabilityPublished 30 Nov 2025Updated 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66423: Tryton trytond · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Tryton trytondSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High · fixed in 7.6.11 : patch Tryton trytond soon.

Data as of 14 Nov 2026, 20:43 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.6.11, 7.4.21, 7.0.40 +1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 14 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 Tryton trytond to 7.6.11, 7.4.21, 7.0.40 or 6.0.70.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPItrytond`pkg:pypi/trytond`Other threats	Affected <6.0.70 <7.0.40 <7.4.21 <7.6.11	Fixed in 6.0.70 7.0.40 7.4.21 7.6.11

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 assess their Tryton trytond versions and prioritize upgrading to the fixed versions: 7.6.11, 7.4.21, 7.0.40, or 6.0.70. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict network access to the trytond server, especially limiting access to the HTML editor route to trusted administrators only. Implement strict role-based access controls (RBAC) and audit logs to detect unauthorized access attempts. Conduct thorough reviews of user privileges to ensure no unnecessary low-privilege accounts can access sensitive routes. Employ network segmentation to isolate ERP systems from less secure network zones. Monitor for unusual activity on the HTML editor endpoint and related services. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to mitigate potential data exposure consequences.

Description

Tryton trytond 6.0 before 7.6.11 does not enforce access rights for the route of the HTML editor. This is fixed in 7.6.11, 7.4.21, 7.0.40, and 6.0.70.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of sensitive business data managed within Tryton ERP systems. Unauthorized access to the HTML editor route could allow attackers to view or extract confidential information, potentially exposing financial, operational, or personal data. This could lead to regulatory non-compliance, especially under GDPR, resulting in legal and financial penalties. The integrity impact is limited but could facilitate further attacks if attackers leverage the unauthorized access to escalate privileges or manipulate data indirectly. Availability is not affected, so operational disruption is unlikely. Organizations in sectors such as manufacturing, finance, and public administration that use Tryton are particularly vulnerable. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers may develop exploits given the vulnerability’s straightforward nature.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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 7 Dec 2025, 04:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats