VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-70963: gophish · Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information

Affects gophishSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Feb 2026
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgophish/gophish`pkg:github/gophish/gophish`Other threats	Affected <=0.12.1	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation steps include restricting access to the Gophish administrative dashboard to trusted networks and users only, using network segmentation and VPNs. Organizations should implement strict Content Security Policies (CSP) to prevent unauthorized scripts from running in the browser context, reducing the risk of credential theft via injected scripts. Monitoring and auditing dashboard access logs can help detect suspicious activity related to API key misuse. Until a patched version is released, consider rotating API keys regularly and limiting their permissions where possible. Educate users to avoid installing untrusted browser extensions and to be vigilant against phishing attempts that could lead to session hijacking. Once a patch or updated Gophish version is available, promptly apply it to remove the exposure of API keys in the client-side code. Additionally, consider implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for dashboard access to add an extra layer of security. Finally, review and update incident response plans to address potential API key compromise scenarios.

Description

Gophish <=0.12.1 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. The administrative dashboard exposes each user’s long-lived API key directly inside the rendered HTML/JavaScript of the page on every login. This makes permanent API credentials accessible to any script running in the browser context.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the security of phishing simulation and awareness programs. Compromise of API keys could allow attackers to hijack phishing campaigns, potentially using them to launch real phishing attacks against employees or partners, thereby increasing the risk of credential theft and malware infections. This undermines the effectiveness of security training and could lead to reputational damage, regulatory penalties (especially under GDPR if personal data is exposed), and operational disruptions. Organizations using Gophish in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure are particularly vulnerable due to the sensitive nature of their data and the potential for cascading security failures. Additionally, attackers gaining control over phishing campaigns could manipulate training results, masking real vulnerabilities. The exposure of API keys also increases the risk of lateral movement within networks if attackers leverage compromised credentials to access other integrated systems. Overall, the vulnerability threatens confidentiality, integrity, and indirectly availability by enabling persistent unauthorized access.

CWE-922Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product stores sensitive information without properly limiting read or write access by unauthorized actors.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (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
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/gophish/gophish/issues/9366 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Feb 2026, 18:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-922, CWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats