CVE-2025-25145
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 jordan.hatch Infusionsoft Analytics infusionsoft-web-tracker allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Infusionsoft Analytics: from n/a through <= 2.0.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Infusionsoft Analytics web tracker (version 2.0 and below) allows attackers to induce authenticated users to perform unintended actions via malicious requests, due to missing or inadequate anti-CSRF protections.
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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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 Infusionsoft Analytics web tracker deploymentLocate any JavaScript files or modules named 'infusionsoft', 'analytics', or related to Infusionsoft tracking in your web application assets, CMS plugins, or third-party integrationsAffected if Infusionsoft Analytics web tracker code is present in your environment
-
Determine the installed tracker versionInspect the tracker JavaScript file or package version metadata (check file headers, package.json, or manifest files for version strings like '2.0' or below)Affected if The tracker version is 2.0 or lower
-
Inspect forms for anti-CSRF tokensReview HTML source code or network traffic for state-changing forms (submission, update, delete actions) served by the tracker; check for hidden input fields or request headers containing token valuesAffected if State-changing forms lack anti-CSRF token fields or token validation logic
-
Verify SameSite cookie attributesInspect Set-Cookie headers or browser dev tools to examine if cookies set by the tracker include the SameSite attribute (should be 'Strict' or 'Lax', not 'None' without Secure flag)Affected if Cookies from the tracker lack SameSite attribute or use SameSite=None without Secure
-
Check Origin/Referer header validationReview server-side code handling tracker requests to see if Origin or Referer headers are validated against an allowlist before processing state-changing operationsAffected if No Origin or Referer header validation exists for tracker endpoints
You are affected if Infusionsoft Analytics web tracker version 2.0 or below is deployed AND state-changing operations lack anti-CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie protections, or Origin/Referer validation.
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 on all state-changing operations (forms and AJAX endpoints), configure SameSite cookie attributes, and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25145 — 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-2025-25145 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