CVE-2025-27913
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 · uneditedPassbolt API before 5, if the server is misconfigured (with an incorrect installation process and disregarding of Health Check results), can send email messages with a domain name taken from an attacker-controlled HTTP Host header.
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 confidencePassbolt API before version 5 contains a vulnerability where an attacker-controlled HTTP Host header can be used to specify the domain name in outgoing email messages when the server is misconfigured due to an incorrect installation process and ignored Health Check results.
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< 5.0.0CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 installed versionDetermine the installed version of Passbolt API (e.g., via admin interface, CLI, or version file).Affected if Version is less than 5.0.0.
-
Inspect email configurationReview the Passbolt configuration file for email settings, specifically looking for domain configuration that might derive values from the HTTP Host header.Affected if The email domain is set to use the HTTP Host header or is not explicitly set, allowing attacker-controlled input.
-
Run Health CheckExecute the Passbolt Health Check command and examine the output for warnings related to email or server configuration.Affected if There are unresolved warnings about email configuration or base URL settings.
-
Verify server configurationCheck the server configuration (e.g., web server config) to ensure the base URL is explicitly defined and not dynamically set from the Host header.Affected if The base URL is not explicitly configured or is set to use the Host header, indicating a misconfiguration.
The environment is affected if the installed version is before 5.0.0 and the server is misconfigured to use the HTTP Host header for the email domain, as shown by ignored Health Check warnings.
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 · scoped5.0.0
Review and correct the server configuration following official installation documentation, address all Health Check warnings, and upgrade to Passbolt API version 5 or later.
Passbolt API 5.0.0
- Upgrade Passbolt API to version 5.0.0 or later to remediate this vulnerability
- After upgrading, run the Passbolt Health Check to verify the installation is properly configured
- Ensure the Health Check passes without warnings before deploying to production
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-27913 — 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-2025-27913 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