CVE-2025-6670
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 · uneditedA Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in multiple WSO2 products due to the use of the HTTP GET method for state-changing operations within admin services, specifically in the event processor of the Carbon console. Although the SameSite=Lax cookie attribute is used as a mitigation, it is ineffective in this context because it allows cookies to be sent with cross-origin top-level navigations using GET requests. A malicious actor can exploit this vulnerability by tricking an authenticated user into visiting a crafted link, leading the browser to issue unintended state-changing requests. Successful exploitation could result in unauthorized operations such as data modification, account changes, or other administrative actions. According to WSO2 Secure Production Guidelines, exposure of Carbon console services to untrusted networks is discouraged, which may reduce the impact in properly secured deployments.
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 confidenceWSO2 products use HTTP GET requests for state-changing operations in admin services within the Carbon console's event processor. Although SameSite=Lax cookies are present, this offers no protection against CSRF via top-level navigations, allowing attackers to trigger unauthorized administrative actions by tricking authenticated users into visiting malicious links.
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= 4.5.0= 4.6.0= 3.1.0= 3.2.0= 3.2.1= 4.0.0= 4.1.0= 4.2.0= 4.3.0= 4.4.0= 4.5.0= 4.6.0= 6.6.0= 5.10.0= 5.11.0= 6.0.0= 6.1.0= 7.0.0= 7.1.0= 7.2.0= 5.10.0= 2.0.0= 2.0.0= 4.5.0= 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
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.
-
Identify WSO2 product and versionCheck the product version by reviewing the product manifest or banner on the Carbon console login page, or inspect the product-info.json file in the installation directoryAffected if The installed version matches one of the affected versions listed in the CVE advisory
-
Confirm Carbon console accessibilityVerify that the WSO2 Carbon console management interface is accessible via HTTP/HTTPS (typically at /carbon or /console path)Affected if The Carbon console is exposed and reachable by authenticated administrators
-
Check event processor component statusNavigate to the Carbon console and verify if the Event Processor feature is enabled under the 'Tools' or 'Event Processor' menu sectionAffected if The Event Processor component is installed and accessible in the Carbon console
-
Identify GET-based admin endpointsReview the web application's configuration files (web.xml or equivalent) or inspect network traffic when accessing the Event Processor admin interface to identify state-changing operations that use GET HTTP methodsAffected if State-changing operations in the event processor admin services are performed using GET requests instead of POST/PUT methods
-
Verify SameSite cookie configurationInspect HTTP response headers for the Carbon console session cookies and check if SameSite attribute is set to 'Lax' or missingAffected if Session cookies have SameSite=Lax or no SameSite attribute, providing no protection against CSRF via top-level navigation
The environment is affected if the installed WSO2 product version matches the CVE list, the Carbon console with Event Processor is accessible, and state-changing operations in admin services use GET requests protected only by SameSite=Lax cookies.
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.
From vendor dataConvert all state-changing operations from GET to POST/PUT methods and implement CSRF tokens or custom request headers for admin service endpoints, following OWASP CSRF prevention guidelines.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6670 — 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-2025-6670 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