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

CVE-2025-34133

HIGH · 7.0 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-10-27
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
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
Wimi Teamwork versions prior to 7.38.17 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in its API. The API accepts any authenticated request that contains a JSON field named 'csrf_token' without validating the field’s value; only the presence of the field is checked. An attacker can craft a cross-site request that causes a logged-in victim’s browser to submit a JSON POST containing an arbitrary or empty 'csrf_token', and the API will execute the request with the victim’s privileges. Successful exploitation can allow an attacker to perform privileged actions as the victim potentially resulting in account takeover, privilege escalation, or service disruption.

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 · high confidence

Wimi Teamwork versions before 7.38.17 have a CSRF vulnerability where the API only checks for the presence of a 'csrf_token' JSON field in authenticated requests without validating the token's actual value. An attacker can exploit this by tricking a logged-in victim's browser into sending a crafted JSON POST request with an arbitrary or empty csrf_token value, causing the API to execute the request with the victim's privileges.

MitigationImplement proper server-side validation of the csrf_token value (not just presence) against the expected token for the user's session, and upgrade to version 7.38.17 or later.

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
Authentication
X
User interaction
A
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 Wimi Teamwork installed version
    Locate the version information in the application's admin panel, about page, or check the software installation directory for a version file. Common paths include settings pages, footer information, or configuration files in the installation directory.
    Affected if The installed version is below 7.38.17 (e.g., 7.38.0, 7.37.5, etc.)
  2. Verify API endpoint accessibility
    Confirm that the Wimi Teamwork API endpoints are accessible from the network where potential victims would browse. Check web server configuration or firewall rules for paths like /api/ or /rest/
    Affected if API endpoints are exposed and reachable by user browsers
  3. Test CSRF token validation behavior
    Send an authenticated JSON POST request to an API endpoint with an intentionally invalid or empty 'csrf_token' value in the JSON body. Observe whether the request is accepted and processed despite the invalid token.
    Affected if The API accepts and processes requests with arbitrary or empty csrf_token values without rejecting them
  4. Check session token configuration
    Inspect the application's session or authentication configuration to determine how csrf_token is generated, stored, and validated. Look for code that checks only for field presence (if access to source or config is available).
    Affected if The validation logic only checks for csrf_token field existence rather than validating the token value against the expected session token

A user is affected if running any Wimi Teamwork version before 7.38.17 and the API accepts JSON requests with invalid or missing CSRF token values while still executing them with the victim's privileges.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper server-side validation of the csrf_token value (not just presence) against the expected token for the user's session, and upgrade to version 7.38.17 or later.

Recommended fix High confidence

Version 7.38.17

  1. Identify the currently installed Wimi Teamwork version by checking the application dashboard, about page, or configuration files
  2. Backup all Wimi Teamwork data, including databases, configurations, and user files, following standard backup procedures
  3. Upgrade Wimi Teamwork to version 7.38.17 or later, following the vendor's documented upgrade process
  4. After upgrading, verify the CSRF protection is working by confirming the API now validates the csrf_token value rather than just its presence
  5. Test critical functionality to ensure the upgrade did not introduce regressions

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
28.0 hours of engineering $4,880
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,808.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-34133 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2025-34133 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