NVD / CVE Program· CNA GitHub_M

CVE-2025-25282: Potential Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in ragflow

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 32/100)

The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.48% (FIRST EPSS).
Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.

Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

RAGFlow is an open-source RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) engine based on deep document understanding. An authenticated user can exploit the Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability that may lead to unauthorized cross-tenant access (list tenant user accounts, add user account into other tenant). Unauthorized cross-tenant access: list user from other tenant (e.g., via GET /<tenant_id>/user/list), add user account to other tenant (POST /<tenant_id>/user). This issue has not yet been patched. Users are advised to reach out to the project maintainers to coordinate a fix.

HighCVSS 8.1 · v3.0—No exploit No fix recorded

Broken access control (IDOR)

Published: Feb 21, 2025
Updated: Jun 17, 2026
EPSS: 0.4% · 41th percentile
CWE: CWE-639

Report tools

JSON

Action score

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS: 32 / 40 · 8.1 / 10
CISA KEV: 0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS: 0 / 30 · 0.4%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation: proof of concept
Automatable: no
Technical impact: total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD: —
CNA · GitHub_M: 8.1; NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
No public exploit code on record
No fixed version yet

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

Vendor	Product	CPE
infiniflow	ragflow	cpe:2.3:a:infiniflow:ragflow

Affected versions

NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.

infiniflow ragflow0.13.0 and later · before 0.14.1

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

infiniflow ragflow
- <= 0.13.0affected

Same product

infiniflow: all records

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

CVE-2024-12433Remote Code Execution in infiniflow/ragflow
40Plan
CVE-2026-45312RAGFlow: Server-Side Template Injection in Prompt Generator leads to Remote Code Execution
39Monitor
CVE-2026-24770RAGFlow Affected by Zip Slip Remote Code Execution (RCE) in MinerUParser
39Monitor

Published before and after this one in the same product

← EarlierCVE-2024-10131Oct 19, 2024 · Remote Code Execution in infiniflow/ragflow
35Monitor
← EarlierCVE-2024-53450Dec 9, 2024 · RAGFlow 0.13.0 suffers from improper access control in document-hooks.ts, allowing unauthorized access to user documents.
30Monitor
Later →CVE-2025-27135Feb 25, 2025 · RAGFlow SQL Injection vulnerability
35Monitor

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.

Exploit status

No known public exploit

No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

No dated events beyond publication.

No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

No commit or PR link among the references.

Credits

All researchers

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

No credits in the CNA record.

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

CVE-2024-1288027 days apartPartial Account Takeover due to Insecure Data Querying in infiniflow/ragflow
26Monitor

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

—

Bug bounty scope

No known public program.

Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).

Technical details

Attack conditions

Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
A low-privileged account is enough.
No user action is required.
No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality: high · data can be read
Integrity: high · data or configuration can be modified
Availability: none

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: Low
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality impact: High
Integrity impact: High
Availability impact: None

Weakness class (CWE)

CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

nvd-secondary

Root cause

The endpoint fetches the record by the ID sent in the request, but never checks whether the record belongs to the requesting user.

The bug in code

The whole CWE-639 class

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

1const invoice = await Invoice.findById(req.params.id);
2res.json(invoice);

Fixed

1const invoice = await Invoice.findOne({
2  id: req.params.id,
3  ownerId: req.user.id,
4});
5if (!invoice) return res.sendStatus(404);
6res.json(invoice);

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

MITRE has no CAPEC/ATT&CK mapping for this CWE.

Change log

No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.

All records