CVE-2025-49590 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-49590 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-49590: CryptPad is a collaboration suite. Prior to version 2025.3.0, the "Link Bouncer" functionality attempts to filter javascript URIs to prevent Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), however this can be bypassed. There is an "early allow" code path that happens before the URI's protocol/scheme is checked, which a maliciously crafted URI can follow. This issue has been patched in version 2025.3.0.

CVE-2025-49590 References

External References

• https://github.com/cryptpad/cryptpad/blob/15c81aa8ccb737a9a1167481f4a699af331364bb/www/bounce/main.js#L64-L95
• https://github.com/cryptpad/cryptpad/commit/d5e4830ba104a4a442cb23aab5378b8565a95607
• https://github.com/cryptpad/cryptpad/security/advisories/GHSA-vq9h-x3gr-v8rj

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• Double Encoding CAPEC-120 The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target.
• Leverage Alternate Encoding CAPEC-267 An adversary leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input or content used by applications such that the applications are ineffective at validating this encoding standard.
• Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic CAPEC-71 An attacker may provide a Unicode string to a system component that is not Unicode aware and use that to circumvent the filter or cause the classifying mechanism to fail to properly understanding the request. That may allow the attacker to slip malicious data past the content filter and/or possibly cause the application to route the request incorrectly.
• Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic CAPEC-80 This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.
• AJAX Footprinting CAPEC-85 This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2025-52390 – Saurus CMS Community Edition since commit d886e5b0 (2010-04-23) is vulnerable to a SQL Injection vulnerability in the `prepareSearchQuery()` method...
• CVE-2025-52361 – Insecure permissions in the script /etc/init.d/lighttpd in AK-Nord USB-Server-LXL Firmware v0.0.16 Build 2023-03-13 allows a locally authenticated ...
• CVE-2025-52327 – SQL Injection vulnerability in Restaurant Order System 1.0 allows a local attacker to obtain sensitive information via the payment.php file
• CVE-2025-50472 – The modelscope/ms-swift library thru 2.6.1 is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution through deserialization of untrusted data within the `load_mod...
• CVE-2025-50460 – A remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in the ms-swift project version 3.3.0 due to unsafe deserialization in tests/run.py using yaml.l...