CVE-2025-9400VulnerabilityPublished 25 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-9400: YiFang CMS · Unrestricted Upload

Affects YiFang CMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
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: 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 Vulnerable System 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 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 25 Aug 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
YiFang CMS	Affected =2.0.0 =2.0.1 =2.0.2 =2.0.3 =2.0.4 =2.0.5	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should involve restricting access to the vulnerable upload functionality through network-level controls such as IP whitelisting or VPN-only access. 2. Deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious multipart upload requests or anomalous file types. 3. Implement strict server-side validation and sanitization of uploaded files, including limiting allowed file extensions and scanning uploads with antivirus and malware detection tools. 4. Monitor web server logs for unusual upload activity or access patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 5. If possible, disable or remove the mergeMultipartUpload function or the entire plugin until a vendor patch is available. 6. Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on file upload mechanisms. 7. Consider migrating to alternative CMS platforms with active vendor support and timely patching. 8. Maintain up-to-date backups of web content and configurations to enable rapid recovery in case of compromise. 9. Educate IT and security teams about this vulnerability and the importance of monitoring for exploitation attempts. 10. Engage with the vendor or community to track any forthcoming patches or advisories.

Description

A flaw has been found in YiFang CMS up to 2.0.5. This affects the function mergeMultipartUpload of the file app/utils/base/plugin/P_file.php. This manipulation of the argument File causes unrestricted upload. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations using YiFang CMS, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to web infrastructure security. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access, data breaches involving sensitive customer or business data, defacement of public-facing websites, and disruption of services. This could damage organizational reputation, lead to regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR violations), and result in financial losses. Given the unrestricted upload capability, attackers could deploy web shells or malware, facilitating persistent access and lateral movement within corporate networks. The medium severity rating suggests moderate but tangible risk, especially for organizations lacking compensating controls such as web application firewalls or strict network segmentation. The absence of vendor patches means European entities must rely on internal security measures to mitigate risk. Industries with high reliance on web presence, such as e-commerce, media, and public sector services, are particularly vulnerable. Additionally, the public availability of exploits increases the likelihood of opportunistic attacks targeting European organizations.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Sep 2025, 01:03 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats