CVE-2025-0615
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedInput validation vulnerability in Qualifio's Wheel of Fortune. This vulnerability allows an attacker to modify an email to contain the ‘+’ symbol to access the application and win prizes as many times as wanted.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceInput validation vulnerability in Qualifio's Wheel of Fortune allows attackers to manipulate email addresses by inserting a '+' symbol, bypassing intended access controls. This enables unauthorized access to the application and abuse of promotional prize mechanics, allowing the same user to win prizes repeatedly.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Qualifio Wheel of Fortune deploymentLocate the Qualifio Wheel of Fortune application in your environment and confirm its installation path or service nameAffected if The application is present and accessible to end users
-
Determine the installed versionCheck the application's about page, version file, or administrative console for the version number, then compare against any vendor-provided version rangesAffected if The installed version falls within an affected range (if available) or is an unpatched release
-
Inspect email input handlingSubmit a test email address containing a '+' symbol (e.g., [email protected]) through the Wheel of Fortune entry form and observe how the application processes itAffected if The application accepts and processes the '+' symbol in the email address without validation errors
-
Verify access control behaviorSubmit two entries using the same base email (e.g., [email protected] and [email protected]) and check if the system treats them as separate, unique usersAffected if The system treats '+' variants as distinct users, allowing separate entries from what is logically the same email address
-
Review prize winner logsExamine the application's winner/prize redemption logs for multiple wins associated with email addresses containing '+' symbolsAffected if The logs show the same user (by base email) winning multiple prizes by using different '+' variants
A user is affected if the Wheel of Fortune application accepts '+' symbols in email addresses and treats each variant as a separate user, enabling repeated prize wins from a single email account.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement proper server-side email address validation that either correctly handles RFC-compliant '+' addressing or rejects such variations according to business rules, combined with additional controls to prevent prize abuse (e.g., rate limiting per unique user/device).
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0615 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-0615 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data