CVE-2025-42616
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 · uneditedSome endpoints in vulnerability-lookup that modified application state (e.g. changing database entries, user data, configurations, or other privileged actions) may have been accessible via HTTP GET requests without requiring a CSRF token. This flaw leaves the application vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks: an attacker who tricks a logged-in user into visiting a malicious website could cause the user’s browser to issue GET requests that perform unintended state-changing operations in the context of their authenticated session. Because the server would treat these GET requests as valid (since no CSRF protection or POST method enforcement was in place), the attacker could exploit this to escalate privileges, change settings, or carry out other unauthorized actions without needing the user’s explicit consent or awareness. The fix ensures that all state-changing endpoints now require HTTP POST requests and include a valid CSRF token. This enforces that state changes cannot be triggered by arbitrary cross-site GET requests. This issue affects Vulnerability-Lookup: before 2.18.0.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in Vulnerability-Lookup allows attackers to trigger state-changing operations (database modifications, user data changes, configuration updates) via HTTP GET requests without CSRF tokens. Attackers can trick authenticated users into visiting malicious sites that issue unintended GET requests performing privileged actions in the user's session context.
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
- High
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- A
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Vulnerability-Lookup installationIdentify if Vulnerability-Lookup application is running in your environment by checking for the web service on its typical port (default 5000/tcp) or by querying running processes for the application binary/serviceAffected if Vulnerability-Lookup is present and running in the environment
-
Determine installed versionQuery the application's version endpoint (typically /api/version or /about) via HTTP GET request, or check the installed package version via package manager if installed via package distributionAffected if Installed version is lower than 2.18.0 (the fixed release)
-
Identify state-changing endpoints accessible via GETReview application routing configuration or API documentation to enumerate endpoints that perform database modifications, user data changes, or configuration updatesAffected if State-changing endpoints are accessible via HTTP GET method without requiring POST with CSRF token
-
Test for CSRF protection on GET requestsSend an authenticated HTTP GET request to a known state-changing endpoint (e.g., user creation, configuration update, data deletion) and observe whether the request succeeds without a CSRF token in the request headers or bodyAffected if GET requests to state-changing endpoints succeed without CSRF token validation (vulnerable condition)
-
Inspect CSRF token configurationCheck the application's configuration files or source code for CSRF middleware settings, specifically whether GET requests to state-changing routes are protected or exemptAffected if CSRF protection is not enforced on GET requests to state-changing endpoints
A user is affected if Vulnerability-Lookup version below 2.18.0 is running and HTTP GET requests to state-changing endpoints execute without requiring CSRF token validation.
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 · scopedUpgrade to version 2.18.0 or later which enforces HTTP POST requests with valid CSRF tokens for all state-changing endpoints. Until upgraded, monitor for unauthorized state changes and consider disabling affected functionality.
2.18.0
- Identify the current version of vulnerability-lookup currently deployed
- Upgrade vulnerability-lookup to version 2.18.0 or later
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the version number
- Confirm that state-changing endpoints now require HTTP POST requests with valid CSRF tokens
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-42616 — 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-2025-42616 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