CVE-2025-64101
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 · uneditedZitadel is open-source identity infrastructure software. Prior to 4.6.0, 3.4.3, and 2.71.18, a potential vulnerability exists in ZITADEL's password reset mechanism. ZITADEL utilizes the Forwarded or X-Forwarded-Host header from incoming requests to construct the URL for the password reset confirmation link. This link, containing a secret code, is then emailed to the user. If an attacker can manipulate these headers (e.g., via host header injection), they could cause ZITADEL to generate a password reset link pointing to a malicious domain controlled by the attacker. If the user clicks this manipulated link in the email, the secret reset code embedded in the URL can be captured by the attacker. This captured code could then be used to reset the user's password and gain unauthorized access to their account. It's important to note that this specific attack vector is mitigated for accounts that have Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) or Passwordless authentication enabled. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.6.0, 3.4.3, and 2.71.18.
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 analysisThe application redirects the browser to a URL taken from user input without validating it, so an attacker can craft a link on your trusted domain that quietly bounces victims to a malicious site. It is a staple of phishing and token theft. The fix is to allow-list redirect destinations or use indirect reference keys, never a raw user-supplied URL.
General guidance for the open redirect class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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< 2.71.18>= 3.0.0, < 3.4.3>= 4.0.0, < 4.6.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 · scoped2.71.183.4.34.6.0
Zitadel 2.71.18 (if on 2.x), 3.4.3 (if on 3.x), or 4.6.0 (if on 4.x)
- Backup your Zitadel database and configuration files before proceeding with the upgrade
- Identify your current Zitadel version (check the admin console or running instance)
- Determine which upgrade path applies: if running 2.x version, upgrade to 2.71.18; if running 3.x version, upgrade to 3.4.3; if running 4.x version, upgrade to 4.6.0
- Download the appropriate fixed release from the Zitadel releases page (github.com/zitadel/zitadel/releases)
- Follow the standard Zitadel upgrade procedure for your deployment method (binary, Docker, or Kubernetes)
- After upgrade, verify that X-Forwarded-Host and Forwarded headers are properly validated or stripped by a reverse proxy if used
- Test the password reset flow to confirm it now uses the correct, internal domain for reset links rather than attacker-controlled values
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-64101 — 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-2025-64101 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