CVE-2025-66424VulnerabilityPublished 30 Nov 2025Updated 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66424: Tryton trytond · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Tryton trytondSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 7.6.11 : update Tryton trytond when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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 7.6.11

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 30 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 2026-10-26.

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
Tryton trytond	Affected =6.0.0 =7.0.0 =7.1.0 =7.5.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediately upgrade trytond to one of the patched versions: 7.6.11, 7.4.21, 7.0.40, or 6.0.70. 2. Implement strict network segmentation to limit access to trytond servers only to authorized personnel and systems. 3. Enforce the principle of least privilege rigorously within Tryton user roles to minimize the number of users with export capabilities. 4. Monitor and audit data export logs for unusual or unauthorized activity, enabling early detection of exploitation attempts. 5. Use multi-factor authentication (MFA) for accessing Tryton administrative interfaces to reduce risk from compromised credentials. 6. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on ERP systems to identify and remediate access control weaknesses. 7. Educate users about the sensitivity of data exports and the importance of reporting suspicious behavior. 8. If immediate patching is not feasible, consider disabling or restricting export functionalities temporarily as a stopgap measure.

Description

Tryton trytond 6.0 before 7.6.11 does not enforce access rights for data export. This is fixed in 7.6.11, 7.4.21, 7.0.40, and 6.0.70.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is unauthorized disclosure of sensitive business data managed within Tryton ERP systems, including financial records, personnel data, and operational information. This can lead to competitive disadvantage, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR violations due to improper data exposure), and reputational damage. Since the vulnerability allows data export without proper authorization, attackers or malicious insiders could exfiltrate confidential information remotely. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach alone can have severe legal and financial consequences. Organizations in sectors with stringent data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing, are particularly vulnerable. The risk is exacerbated in environments where network segmentation and internal access controls are weak, allowing low-privilege users to exploit the flaw over the network.

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, 04:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats