CVE-2025-31601
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 appointy Appointy Appointment Scheduler appointy-appointment-scheduler allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Appointy Appointment Scheduler: from n/a through <= 4.2.1.
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 Appointy Appointment Scheduler allows attackers to trick authenticated users into executing unintended actions (such as modifying appointments or user data) by forcing their browser to send malicious requests to the application.
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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 state-changing endpoints in Appointy Appointment SchedulerReview the application for endpoints that modify data: appointment creation/editing/deletion, user profile updates, user management, and settings changes. Use browser developer tools or proxy to capture requests to these endpoints.Affected if The application lacks anti-CSRF protection on any state-changing endpoint.
-
Inspect HTML forms for anti-CSRF tokensView the page source or use developer tools to examine HTML forms for appointment creation, user profile edits, and admin functions. Look for hidden input fields containing random token values that are submitted with the form.Affected if Forms handling appointments or user data do not contain hidden CSRF token fields.
-
Verify CSRF token validation on server-sideExamine server-side code or capture HTTP requests when submitting state-changing forms. Submit a request without the expected token parameter and observe if the server accepts or rejects the request.Affected if The server accepts state-changing requests without validating anti-CSRF tokens.
-
Check session cookie SameSite attributeUse browser developer tools to inspect session cookies. Look for the Set-Cookie header or cookie details to verify if the SameSite attribute is set to 'Strict' or 'Lax' on session cookies.Affected if Session cookies do not have SameSite attribute configured, or it is set to 'None' without Secure flag.
-
Test for CSRF vulnerability using a proof-of-conceptCreate a test HTML page on a different origin that submits a request to the target application as an authenticated user (e.g., modifying an appointment). Serve this page and attempt to trigger the request from the authenticated user's browser.Affected if The malicious cross-origin request successfully triggers state changes on the Appointy application.
A user is affected if the Appointy Appointment Scheduler does not implement anti-CSRF tokens on state-changing operations and lacks SameSite attribute on session cookies.
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) on state-changing operations and configure SameSite attribute on session cookies to prevent cross-origin request forgery.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-31601 — 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-2025-31601 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