CVE-2025-67874VulnerabilityPublished 16 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-67874: ChurchCRM CRM · Observable Response Discrepancy

Affects ChurchCRM CRMSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium : upgrade to 6.5.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.5.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade churchcrm/CRM to 6.5.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubchurchcrm/CRM`pkg:github/churchcrm/CRM`Other threats	Affected <6.5.0	Fixed in 6.5.0

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 upgrade ChurchCRM installations to version 6.5.0 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Until the upgrade is applied, organizations should implement strict network segmentation and limit access to the ChurchCRM application to trusted users only, reducing the risk of privilege escalation. Employing strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication (MFA), can mitigate the impact of credential compromise. Monitoring HTTP traffic for anomalous responses that include sensitive data can help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should conduct regular audits of user privileges to ensure that high-level access is granted only when necessary. Encrypting all internal and external communications with TLS will prevent attackers from intercepting plaintext passwords in transit. Finally, educating users about the risks of password reuse and encouraging strong, unique passwords will reduce the potential damage from credential harvesting.

Description

ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. Prior to version 6.5.0, the application echoes back plaintext passwords submitted by users in subsequent HTTP responses. This information disclosure significantly increases the risk of credential compromise and may amplify the impact of other vulnerabilities (e.g., XSS, IDOR, session fixation), enabling attackers to harvest other users’ passwords. Version 6.5.0 fixes the issue.

Impact

For European organizations using ChurchCRM versions prior to 6.5.0, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of user credentials. Credential compromise can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive church management data, including personal information of congregation members, financial records, and internal communications. The exposure of plaintext passwords can also facilitate lateral movement within the network if reused credentials are present, increasing the risk of broader organizational compromise. Additionally, the vulnerability can amplify the impact of other existing vulnerabilities, potentially leading to full account takeover or data breaches. Given that ChurchCRM is used by religious organizations, the impact extends to privacy concerns and reputational damage. The risk is heightened in environments where network traffic is not encrypted or where internal access controls are weak. Although exploitation requires high privileges, insider threats or attackers who have already gained elevated access could leverage this vulnerability to escalate their control and harvest credentials at scale.

CWE-204Observable Response Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
ICMP IP Total Length Field Probe (opens in a new tab)
ICMP IP 'ID' Field Error Message Probe (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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, 04:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-204

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats