CVE-2025-3193 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-3193
Vulnerability Scoring

5.9
/10
Significant Risk

Security assessments indicate that CVE-2025-3193 presents a notable risk, potentially requiring prompt mitigation.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: High
    Exploits require significant effort and special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Network
    Vulnerability is exploitable over a network without physical access.
  • Privileges Required: None
    No privileges are required for exploitation.
  • Scope: Unchanged
    Exploit remains within the originally vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-3193 Details

Status: Received on 27 Sep 2025, 05:15 UTC

Published on: 27 Sep 2025, 05:15 UTC

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

report@snyk.io

CVSS3 Type

Secondary

CVSS3 Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

CVE-2025-3193 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-3193: Versions of the package algoliasearch-helper from 2.0.0-rc1 and before 3.11.2 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution in the _merge() function in merge.js, which allows constructor.prototype to be written even though doing so throws an error. In the "extreme edge-case" that the resulting error is caught, code injected into the user-supplied search parameter may be exeucted. This is related to but distinct from the issue reported in [CVE-2021-23433](https://security.snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-ALGOLIASEARCHHELPER-1570421). **NOTE:** This vulnerability is not exploitable in the default configuration of InstantSearch since searchParameters are not modifiable by users.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-3193

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-3193 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-3193

CVE-2025-3193 presents a challenge to exploit due to its high attack complexity, but the absence of privilege requirements still makes it a viable target for skilled attackers. A thorough security review is advised.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-3193, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-3193, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-3193 has no significant impact on data confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-3193 poses no threat to data integrity.
  • Availability: High
    CVE-2025-3193 can disrupt system operations, potentially causing complete denial of service (DoS).

CVE-2025-3193 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-1321

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs CAPEC-1 In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
  • Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels CAPEC-180 An attacker exploits a weakness in the configuration of access controls and is able to bypass the intended protection that these measures guard against and thereby obtain unauthorized access to the system or network. Sensitive functionality should always be protected with access controls. However configuring all but the most trivial access control systems can be very complicated and there are many opportunities for mistakes. If an attacker can learn of incorrectly configured access security settings, they may be able to exploit this in an attack.
  • Manipulating User-Controlled Variables CAPEC-77 This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-3193: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-9944 – The Professional Contact Form plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0. This is...
  • CVE-2025-9899 – The Trust Reviews plugin for Google, Tripadvisor, Yelp, Airbnb and other platforms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery...
  • CVE-2025-9898 – The cForms – Light speed fast Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3...
  • CVE-2025-9896 – The HidePost plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.8. This is due to missing o...
  • CVE-2025-9894 – The Sync Feedly plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missin...