VulnerabilityPublished 16 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-67492: WeblateOrg weblate · Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input

Affects WeblateOrg weblateSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 5.15 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% 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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: 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 16 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

To mitigate CVE-2025-67492, European organizations should take the following specific actions: 1) Immediately upgrade Weblate installations to version 5.15 or later, where the vulnerability is fully patched. 2) If upgrading is not immediately feasible, disable webhook processing by setting the ENABLE_HOOKS configuration parameter to false, effectively preventing webhook-triggered repository updates. 3) Restrict network access to the Weblate webhook endpoint using firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted sources only. 4) Implement monitoring and alerting on repository update activities to detect unusual or unexpected update triggers that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Review and harden webhook payload validation and logging configurations to improve detection and forensic capabilities. 6) Educate development and operations teams about the vulnerability and the importance of timely patching and secure webhook handling. These targeted measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on configuration changes, network controls, and operational monitoring specific to Weblate's webhook functionality.

Description

Weblate is a web based localization tool. In versions prior to 5.15, it was possible to trigger repository updates for many repositories via a crafted webhook payload. Version 5.15 fixes the issue. As a workaround, disabling webhooks completely using ENABLE_HOOKS avoids this vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-67492 primarily involves operational disruption rather than direct data compromise. Since Weblate is widely used for localization and translation management in software development, unauthorized triggering of repository updates can interfere with development workflows, continuous integration pipelines, and deployment processes. This may lead to delays, inconsistent code states, or inadvertent exposure of update activity metadata. Although the vulnerability does not allow code injection or direct data leakage, the ability to trigger repository updates without authorization could be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain or to cause denial of service in development environments. Organizations with extensive localization operations or those relying heavily on automated repository updates are at higher risk of operational impact. Additionally, the vulnerability's network accessibility and lack of authentication requirements increase the likelihood of opportunistic exploitation if left unpatched. European companies in sectors such as software development, telecommunications, and digital services that use Weblate are particularly susceptible to these operational risks.

CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (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, 01:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats