VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-67713: miniflux v2 · Open Redirect

Affects miniflux v2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.2.15 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 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 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.15

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 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 miniflux/v2 to 2.2.15.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubminiflux/v2`pkg:github/miniflux/v2`Other threats	Affected <2.2.15	Fixed in 2.2.15

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Miniflux to version 2.2.15 or later immediately to apply the official fix that properly validates redirect URLs and blocks protocol-relative URLs.
Implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious redirect URLs containing protocol-relative patterns (e.g., URLs starting with //).
Educate users about phishing risks, especially regarding unexpected redirects after login and the importance of verifying URLs before interacting.
Monitor logs for unusual redirect URL parameters or spikes in redirect-related errors.
If upgrading is delayed, consider disabling or restricting redirect functionality in Miniflux configuration if possible.
Employ multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the impact of credential theft from phishing.
Use browser security features or extensions that warn users about suspicious redirects or untrusted domains.
Conduct phishing simulations to raise awareness and test user response to redirect-based phishing attempts.

Description

Miniflux 2 is an open source feed reader. Versions 2.2.14 and below treat redirect_url as safe when url.Parse(...).IsAbs() is false, enabling phishing flows after login. Protocol-relative URLs like //ikotaslabs.com have an empty scheme and pass that check, allowing post-login redirects to attacker-controlled sites. This issue is fixed in version 2.2.15.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate phishing risk. Since Miniflux is an open source feed reader used by individuals and organizations for aggregating news and information, attackers can exploit this flaw to redirect users to malicious websites after login, potentially leading to credential theft, malware delivery, or further social engineering attacks. The impact on confidentiality and integrity is limited to the phishing vector, but user trust and organizational security posture may be compromised. Availability is not affected. Organizations relying on Miniflux for internal or external communications could see increased phishing attempts targeting their users. This is particularly concerning for sectors with high sensitivity to phishing such as finance, government, and critical infrastructure. The lack of required privileges lowers the barrier to exploitation, increasing risk. However, the requirement for user interaction and no known active exploits somewhat limit immediate widespread impact.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
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.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (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 18 Dec 2025, 00:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats