CVE-2025-59112
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 · uneditedWindu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in user editing functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the victim, will automatically send POST request that deletes given user. Only version 4.1 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable. This issue was fixed in version 4.1 build 2250.
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 confidenceWindu CMS 4.1 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the user editing functionality. An authenticated victim visiting a malicious website can have their browser automatically send a forged POST request that deletes specified user accounts without the victim's consent.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 4.1CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Check the installed Windu CMS versionLocate the version file or access the admin dashboard footer to identify the exact CMS version numberAffected if The version is exactly 4.1 (the only affected version)
-
Locate the user account deletion endpointIdentify the controller or route handling user deletion requests in the CMS codebase (typically found in the users or admin module)Affected if The deletion functionality exists and is accessible to authenticated users
-
Inspect the user deletion form for CSRF protectionView the HTML source or HTTP response of the user editing/deletion page and check for a hidden CSRF token field or anti-CSRF token in the form submissionAffected if No CSRF token field is present in the user deletion form (the vulnerability exists when tokens are missing)
-
Test for CSRF token validation on deletion requestsSend a crafted POST request to the user deletion endpoint without a valid CSRF token and observe whether the request is processed or rejectedAffected if The request succeeds without requiring a valid CSRF token (confirms the vulnerability)
You are affected if running Windu CMS version 4.1 AND the user deletion functionality lacks CSRF token validation on form submissions.
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 Windu CMS to version 4.1 build 2250 or later, which includes CSRF protection tokens for the user editing forms.
Windu CMS 4.1 build 2250
- Upgrade Windu CMS from version 4.1 to version 4.1 build 2250
- After upgrade, verify the user editing functionality works correctly
- Confirm the CSRF protection is now in place by testing that requests require proper anti-CSRF tokens
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59112 — 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-2025-59112 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