CVE-2025-6865VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-6865: DaiCuo · Cross-Site Request Forgery

Affects DaiCuoSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 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 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Jun 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
GitHubwwm1995/daicuo`pkg:github/wwm1995/daicuo`Other threats	Affected =1.3.0 =1.3.1 =1.3.2 =1.3.3 =1.3.4 =1.3.5 =1.3.6 =1.3.7 =1.3.8 =1.3.9 =1.3.10 =1.3.11 =1.3.12 =1.3.13	Fixed in–

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 implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Apply any available patches or updates from DaiCuo as soon as they are released. 2) Restrict access to the /admin.php/addon/index endpoint to trusted IP addresses or VPN users to reduce exposure. 3) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block CSRF attack patterns targeting administrative URLs. 4) Educate administrators about the risks of CSRF and advise them to avoid clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted websites while logged into the DaiCuo admin interface. 5) Monitor logs for unusual or unauthorized administrative actions that could indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Consider implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrative access to add an additional layer of security, although MFA does not directly prevent CSRF, it can reduce the risk of session hijacking or misuse.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in DaiCuo up to 1.3.13. This affects an unknown part of the file /admin.php/addon/index. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using DaiCuo, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized administrative actions being performed through CSRF attacks. If an attacker can lure an authenticated administrator to a malicious webpage, they could manipulate the system's addons or configurations, potentially leading to further compromise or disruption of services. While the confidentiality and availability impacts are low, the integrity impact could affect business operations, especially if critical configurations or plugins are altered. Organizations in sectors with strict regulatory requirements (e.g., finance, healthcare, government) could face compliance issues if unauthorized changes lead to data integrity problems or service disruptions. The medium severity score suggests that while the threat is not critical, it should be addressed promptly to prevent exploitation, especially as the vulnerability is publicly disclosed. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate it, as attackers often develop exploits following public disclosure.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…