CVE-2025-69245
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 · uneditedRaytha CMS is vulnerable to Reflected XSS via returnUrl parameter in logon functionality. An attacker can craft a malicious URL which, when opened by the authenticated victim, results in arbitrary JavaScript execution in the victim’s browser. This issue was fixed in 1.4.6.
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 confidenceRaytha CMS 1.4.5 and earlier contains a reflected XSS vulnerability in the logon functionality where the returnUrl parameter is not properly sanitized. An unauthenticated attacker can craft a malicious URL containing JavaScript that executes in the victim's browser when the authenticated user visits the link.
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< 1.4.6CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify installed Raytha CMS versionLog into the Raytha CMS admin dashboard and navigate to Settings > About, or check the version file in the installation directory if accessibleAffected if The version displayed is 1.4.5 or earlier (any version below 1.4.6)
-
Confirm logon functionality is accessibleAccess the logon page of the Raytha CMS application (typically /login or /admin/login)Affected if The logon page is publicly or internally accessible without additional authentication barriers beyond the login form itself
-
Test returnUrl parameter for reflectionSubmit a benign XSS test payload in the returnUrl parameter of the login form (e.g., returnUrl=javascript:alert(1)) and observe if the value is reflected unescaped in the response HTMLAffected if The returnUrl value appears in the HTML response without proper HTML encoding or sanitization
You are affected if your Raytha CMS installation is version 1.4.5 or earlier and the login page returnUrl parameter reflects input without sanitization.
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 · scoped1.4.6
Upgrade to Raytha CMS version 1.4.6 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability.
1.4.6
- 1. Back up your current Raytha installation and database before proceeding with the upgrade.
- 2. Download Raytha version 1.4.6 from the official Raytha repository or release page.
- 3. Deploy the new version 1.4.6 to your production environment, following the standard upgrade procedure documented by Raytha.
- 4. Verify that the application is running correctly after the upgrade.
- 5. Test the login functionality to confirm the returnUrl parameter is now properly sanitized and the XSS vulnerability is resolved.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-69245 — 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-2025-69245 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