CVE-2025-23815
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 · uneditedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in linickx root Cookie allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects root Cookie: from n/a through 1.6.
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 confidenceThis is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the linickx root Cookie library. The library lacks proper anti-CSRF protections, allowing attackers to trick authenticated users into performing unintended state-changing requests. An attacker could craft malicious links or pages that execute actions on behalf of logged-in users when they visit the attacker's site.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 linickx root Cookie library usageSearch your codebase, dependencies, or installed packages for the 'linickx' or 'root-cookie' library. Check package.json, requirements.txt, composer.json, or similar dependency files.Affected if The library is present in your dependencies or codebase
-
Determine the installed versionRun a package manager command to list the installed version (e.g., npm list linickx-root-cookie, pip show root-cookie, or equivalent). Compare the version number to the affected version range.Affected if The installed version falls within the affected version range (compare your version to known vulnerable versions)
-
Verify state-changing endpoints lack anti-CSRF protectionReview your application's state-changing operations (forms, API endpoints that modify data). Inspect the HTML or API responses for the presence of anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer tokens) in requests.Affected if State-changing requests do not require valid anti-CSRF tokens and rely on this vulnerable library
-
Check session cookie configurationInspect your session cookie configuration or Set-Cookie headers. Look for the SameSite attribute value on cookies set by the application.Affected if Cookies lack the SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attribute and the application uses this library for cookie handling
You are affected if your application uses the linickx root Cookie library within the vulnerable version range and lacks anti-CSRF token validation on state-changing operations.
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 anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) for all state-changing operations and configure SameSite attribute on session cookies. Additionally, implement origin/referer validation as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23815 — 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-2025-23815 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