CVE-2025-66225
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 · uneditedOrangeHRM is a comprehensive human resource management (HRM) system. From version 5.0 to 5.7, the password reset workflow does not enforce that the username submitted in the final reset request matches the account for which the reset process was originally initiated. After obtaining a valid reset link for any account they can receive email for, an attacker can alter the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. Because the system accepts the supplied username without verification, the attacker can set a new password for any chosen account, including privileged accounts, resulting in full account takeover. This issue has been patched in version 5.8.
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 confidenceOrangeHRM versions 5.0-5.7 contain an IDOR vulnerability in the password reset workflow. An attacker with a valid reset link for one account can modify the username parameter in the final reset request to target a different user. The system fails to verify that the submitted username matches the account for which the reset was initiated, allowing arbitrary password reset for any account including admin accounts.
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>= 5.0, < 5.8CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Determine installed OrangeHRM versionLog into the OrangeHRM admin dashboard and navigate to Admin > Configuration > System Users, or check the version from the login page footer. Alternatively, inspect the file 'symfony/config/orangehrm.yaml' or the installer configuration file for the version field.Affected if The installed version is 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, or 5.7 (versions below 5.8).
-
Confirm password reset functionality is enabledNavigate to Admin > Configuration > Authentication > Password Reset in the admin interface, or inspect the configuration file 'symfony/config/orangehrm_authentication.yaml' to verify that password reset is not disabled.Affected if Password reset is enabled and accessible to users.
-
Check network exposure of password reset endpointIdentify if the OrangeHRM instance is publicly accessible or only available within an internal network. Verify that the password reset endpoint '/index.php/auth/resetPassword' or similar is not protected by additional authentication or IP restrictions.Affected if The password reset endpoint is reachable from untrusted networks without additional access controls.
-
Verify no compensating controls existReview web server logs or OrangeHRM audit logs for any password reset activity that shows mismatched usernames between the reset request and the submitted username parameter.Affected if No web application firewall, intrusion detection, or additional validation is present to detect username parameter tampering in reset requests.
If the installed OrangeHRM version is 5.0 through 5.7 and the password reset feature is enabled, the environment is affected by this IDOR vulnerability.
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 · scoped5.8
Upgrade OrangeHRM to version 5.8 or later where the patch addresses the username verification flaw in the password reset flow.
5.8
- 1. Create a complete backup of the OrangeHRM database and files
- 2. Download OrangeHRM version 5.8 from the official OrangeHRM website or GitHub repository
- 3. Follow the standard OrangeHRM upgrade procedure for your installation method (composer or manual)
- 4. Clear any caches if applicable (var/cache directory)
- 5. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the version in the admin panel
- 6. Test the password reset workflow to confirm the vulnerability is patched - ensure username validation is enforced in the final reset request
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,144.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-66225 — 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-2025-66225 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