CVE-2025-13475
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 · uneditedIn multi-tenanted deployments, the application consent management mechanism fails to correctly isolate consent scopes between tenants. Consent granted by a user for a specific SaaS application within one tenant can be incorrectly applied to SaaS applications with the same name in other tenants, leading to unintended cross-tenant consent sharing. This vulnerability may result in the exposure of user data across tenants, enabling SaaS applications in different tenants to access and modify information without explicit user authorization. This can lead to unauthorized data access and privacy violations. This vulnerability has no impact if the deployment does not support multi-tenancy.
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 confidenceIn multi-tenant deployments, the application consent management system fails to properly scope consent grants to the originating tenant. When a user authorizes a SaaS application in one tenant, the consent token or scope is incorrectly associated with any application of the same name in other tenants, allowing cross-tenant access without explicit authorization.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 3.2.0, < 3.2.0.457>= 3.2.1, < 3.2.1.76>= 5.10.0, < 5.10.0.382CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Check WSO2 API Manager installed versionLocate the version.txt file in the product installation directory (typically at <INSTALL_PATH>/repository/components/VERSION) or check the dashboard UI under Manage > About. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: >= 3.2.0, < 3.2.0.457 or >= 3.2.1, < 3.2.1.76.Affected if The installed version falls within any of the affected version ranges.
-
Check WSO2 Identity Server installed versionLocate the version.txt file in the product installation directory (typically at <INSTALL_PATH>/repository/components/VERSION) or check the dashboard UI under Monitor > System Information. Compare against affected range: >= 5.10.0, < 5.10.0.382.Affected if The installed version falls within the affected version range.
-
Verify multi-tenancy is enabledInspect the deployment.toml configuration file (located at <INSTALL_PATH>/repository/conf/deployment.toml) and look for the section [tenant_mgt] with enable_multi_tenant property set to true, or check if multiple tenants exist in the system via the management console under Identity Providers > Resident > Tenant Management.Affected if Multi-tenancy is enabled and multiple tenants exist in the deployment.
-
Inspect OAuth application consent settingsAccess the management console, navigate to Service Providers > List, select an application, then go to Inbound Authentication Configuration > OAuth/OpenID Connect Configuration. Review the Consent Settings section to see if tenant-specific consent binding is configured.Affected if Consent settings allow applications with identical names to share consent scopes across different tenants without tenant-specific validation.
The environment is affected if the installed WSO2 product version is within the vulnerable ranges AND multi-tenancy is enabled with applications that share identical names across tenants.
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.
dbcve · scoped3.2.0.4573.2.1.765.10.0.382
Implement tenant-aware consent scope validation that binds each consent grant to the specific tenant context and application instance. All consent checks must verify tenant identity before granting access.
Api Manager: 3.2.0.457+ or 3.2.1.76+ | Identity Server: 5.10.0.382+
- 1. Identify which WSO2 products are affected in your deployment (Api Manager and/or Identity Server)
- 2. For WSO2 Api Manager 3.2.0.x deployments: Upgrade to version 3.2.0.457 or later
- 3. For WSO2 Api Manager 3.2.1.x deployments: Upgrade to version 3.2.1.76 or later
- 4. For WSO2 Identity Server 5.10.0.x deployments: Upgrade to version 5.10.0.382 or later
- 5. After upgrading, verify that consent granted in one tenant is no longer incorrectly applied to applications with the same name in other tenants
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-13475 — 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-2025-13475 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