CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2025-62797NVD status: Deferred

FluxCP: Cross-Site Request Forgery

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2025-62797 is a high-severity cross-site request forgery vulnerability in FluxCP from rAthena, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.6 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. Affected FluxCP versions: < e3f130c4a2ccd615a3ee2ee0302ecbfbd84747e6. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.24% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of FluxCP you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
  3. Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
  4. Because the attack needs a user to take part, warn users about unexpected links and files related to this product until it is patched.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
RathenaFluxCP< e3f130c4a2ccd615a3ee2ee0302ecbfbd84747e6Not stated

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Attack requirements
NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
PassiveA user only needs to do something routine, such as viewing a page.
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
Integrity (vulnerable system)
HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
Availability (vulnerable system)
NoneNo loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
Confidentiality (other systems)
NoneNo loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Integrity (other systems)
NoneNo loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Availability (other systems)
NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.

Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA (github.com).

Official description

FluxCP is a web-based Control Panel for rAthena servers written in PHP. A critical Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the FluxCP-based website template used by multiple rAthena/Ragnarok servers. State-changing POST endpoints accept browser-initiated requests that are authorized solely by the session cookie without per-request anti-CSRF tokens or robust Origin/Referer validation. An attacker who can lure a logged-in user to an attacker-controlled page can cause that user to perform sensitive actions without their intent. This vulnerability is fixed with commit e3f130c.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Cross-Site Request Forgery

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF.
  • Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).

More Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerabilities (CWE-352)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Recent Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.