dbcve.org
DiskpulseApplication · Flexense

CVE-2025-59894

HIGH · 8.0 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-01-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable

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 Sync Breeze Enterprise Server v10.4.18 and Disk Pulse Enterprise v10.4.18. An authenticated user could cause another user to perform unwanted actions within the application they are logged into. This vulnerability is possible due to the lack of proper CSRF token implementation. Among other things, it is possible, using a POST request to delete all commands via '/delete_all_commands?sid='.

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

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sync Breeze Enterprise Server and Disk Pulse Enterprise v10.4.18. The application lacks CSRF token validation on sensitive endpoints, allowing authenticated attackers to craft malicious requests (such as POST to '/delete_all_commands?sid=') that trick authenticated users into performing unintended actions like deleting all commands.

MitigationImplement synchronizer token pattern: generate unique CSRF tokens per session/request, validate tokens on all state-changing POST/PUT/DELETE operations, and include tokens in forms and AJAX requests.

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
DiskpulseApplication
Affected:= 10.4.18
SyncbreezeApplication
Affected:= 10.4.18

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
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 installed product and version
    Check installed programs or running services for Flexense Diskpulse or Syncbreeze Enterprise. Look for version 10.4.18 specifically, or compare your installed version against the affected range (= 10.4.18).
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 10.4.18 for either Diskpulse or Syncbreeze Enterprise.
  2. Confirm web interface is accessible
    Attempt to access the application's web interface on the default HTTP port (usually port 80 or 443). For Diskpulse typically http://localhost:port or the configured server address.
    Affected if The web interface responds and accepts authentication, indicating the attack surface exists.
  3. Check if authentication is required
    Try accessing sensitive endpoints without credentials. Verify the application requires login for state-changing operations.
    Affected if The application uses session-based authentication, meaning an authenticated user session could be exploited.
  4. Verify CSRF protection is absent on sensitive endpoints
    Review application behavior or source code for the presence of CSRF tokens. For this CVE, specifically check if POST requests to endpoints like '/delete_all_commands?sid=' include and validate synchronizer tokens.
    Affected if The application lacks CSRF token validation on state-changing POST operations like delete commands.

You are affected if you are running Diskpulse or Syncbreeze Enterprise version 10.4.18 with the web interface accessible and the application does not implement CSRF token validation on sensitive POST endpoints.

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 synchronizer token pattern: generate unique CSRF tokens per session/request, validate tokens on all state-changing POST/PUT/DELETE operations, and include tokens in forms and AJAX requests.

Fix this in Diskpulse Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,600
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59894 — 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-2025-59894 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