CVE-2025-65107
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 · uneditedLangfuse is an open source large language model engineering platform. In versions from 2.95.0 to before 2.95.12 and from 3.17.0 to before 3.131.0, in SSO provider configurations without an explicit AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK setting, a potential account takeover may happen if an authenticated user is made to call a specifically crafted URL via a CSRF or phishing attack. This issue has been patched in versions 2.95.12 and 3.131.0. A workaround for this issue involves setting AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK.
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 confidenceLangfuse versions 2.95.0-2.95.11 and 3.17.0-3.130.0 contain an SSO authentication bypass where missing explicit AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK configuration allows account takeover via crafted URLs tricking authenticated users (CSRF/phishing).
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>= 2.95.0, < 2.95.12>= 3.17.0, < 3.131.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 installed Langfuse versionLocate and inspect the running Langfuse version (check container image tag, package.json, or environment variable depending on deployment method)Affected if Version is >= 2.95.0 and < 2.95.12, or >= 3.17.0 and < 3.131.0
-
Verify SSO provider configuration existsInspect Langfuse environment configuration or SSO setup files for any AUTH_<PROVIDER>_ENABLED or similar SSO provider settingsAffected if SSO authentication providers are configured and enabled in the environment
-
Confirm AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK is explicitly setSearch configuration files and environment variables for AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK variables (where <PROVIDER> is OIDC, SAML, or similar SSO provider name) and verify they are set to a non-empty valueAffected if SSO is enabled but AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK is not defined or is empty in the configuration
Environment is affected if running a vulnerable Langfuse version with SSO configured but without explicit AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK validation settings defined.
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 · scoped2.95.123.131.0
Upgrade to version 2.95.12 or 3.131.0, or set AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK in SSO provider configuration as a workaround.
2.95.12 for 2.x branch; 3.131.0 for 3.x branch
- Identify which Langfuse version branch (2.x or 3.x) is currently in use
- If using version 2.x (>= 2.95.0), upgrade to version 2.95.12 or later
- If using version 3.x (>= 3.17.0), upgrade to version 3.131.0 or later
- After upgrade, verify SSO authentication continues to work correctly
- Alternatively, as a mitigation if immediate upgrade is not feasible, configure AUTH_<PROVIDER>_CHECK setting for your SSO provider
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $1,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-65107 — 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-2025-65107 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