Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Weakness · CWE-352

CVE-2025-32248

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-04-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
61/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SwiftXR SwiftXR (3D/AR/VR) Viewer swiftxr-3darvr-viewer allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects SwiftXR (3D/AR/VR) Viewer: from n/a through <= 1.0.7.

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 confidence

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SwiftXR 3D/AR/VR Viewer allows attackers to perform unauthorized state-changing actions on behalf of authenticated users via maliciously crafted web pages. The application lacks proper anti-CSRF token validation or SameSite cookie protections on sensitive endpoints.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations and configure SameSite attribute on session cookies. Additionally, validate the Origin/Referer headers on POST requests.

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify SwiftXR version
    Locate the installed SwiftXR application files and check for a version file, About section in the UI, or version metadata in the application bundle. Compare against any available version information from your vendor.
    Affected if The installed version is within the affected range and has not been patched.
  2. Identify state-changing endpoints
    Review the application's API documentation or network traffic during typical usage to identify endpoints that accept POST, PUT, or DELETE requests and perform actions like changing settings, authentication state, or user preferences.
    Affected if The application has endpoints that handle sensitive operations without requiring explicit user action beyond session authentication.
  3. Check for anti-CSRF token presence
    Inspect HTML forms and AJAX requests that submit to state-changing endpoints. Look for a hidden input field containing a token value, or a custom request header that includes a CSRF token. Submit a request without this token to see if it is accepted.
    Affected if State-changing requests are processed without requiring a valid anti-CSRF token.
  4. Inspect session cookie attributes
    Using browser developer tools or a command-line HTTP client, capture a session cookie from the application and examine the Set-Cookie header. Check if the SameSite attribute is set to 'Strict' or 'Lax', or if it is missing entirely.
    Affected if The session cookie lacks a SameSite attribute or has it set to 'None' without the Secure flag.
  5. Test Origin/Referer header validation
    Send a state-changing request with an Origin or Referer header pointing to a different domain (for example, using curl with modified headers). Observe whether the request is rejected or processed.
    Affected if The application accepts state-changing requests from arbitrary Origin values without validation.

You are affected if your SwiftXR version lacks CSRF token validation on state-changing endpoints AND your session cookies lack SameSite protections, allowing attackers on malicious sites to act on behalf of authenticated users.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations and configure SameSite attribute on session cookies. Additionally, validate the Origin/Referer headers on POST requests.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-32248 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-32248 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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