CVE-2025-32559
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 REVE Chat REVE Chat revechat allows Stored XSS.This issue affects REVE Chat: from n/a through <= 6.4.4.
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 confidenceA CSRF vulnerability in REVE Chat version <= 6.4.4 allows attackers to trick authenticated users into triggering requests that inject malicious scripts, resulting in Stored XSS. The attack leverages the lack of CSRF protection to persistently embed malicious code that executes when other users view the compromised content.
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 REVE Chat versionLocate the version number in the application footer, About page, or admin dashboard settings. Check any /about, /settings, or help menu entries.Affected if Installed version is 6.4.4 or lower
-
Verify CSRF token implementationInspect the HTML source of any REVE Chat forms (login, chat settings, agent dashboard) and check if hidden input fields containing_csrf_token or similar anti-CSRF tokens are present.Affected if Forms lack hidden CSRF token fields
-
Check SameSite cookie attributesUse browser developer tools or curl to inspect cookies set by REVE Chat. Examine the Set-Cookie headers for SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attributes.Affected if Cookies lack SameSite attribute or have SameSite=None without Secure flag
-
Test for XSS payload persistenceIf you have test access, use two different browser sessions. Submit a script tag in a chat message or agent note from one session and verify if it executes when viewed in another session.Affected if Stored XSS executes across sessions without sanitization
You are affected if REVE Chat version is 6.4.4 or lower AND forms lack CSRF tokens, allowing stored XSS injection that persists across user sessions.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of REVE Chat and implement CSRF tokens with SameSite cookie attributes, combined with output encoding and input sanitization to prevent XSS injection.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-32559 — 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-2025-32559 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