CVE-2025-64526 json
Strapi has a rate limit bypass on users-permissions plugin via attacker-controlled email keying
published 2026-05-13 5 mo ago modified 2026-10-14 26 d ago also EUVD-2025-209860 , GHSA-7mqx-wwh4-f9fw
- cvss
- 5.3
- version 3.1, NVD
- cisa kev
- Not listed
- not in CISA's catalog
- epss
- 0.5%
- EPSS 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days, percentile 42%
- public exploits
- 0
- none known
Summary
Strapi is an open source headless content management system. In Strapi versions prior to 5.45.0, the rate-limit middleware in the users-permissions plugin derived its rate-limit key in part from `ctx.request.body.email`, including on routes whose body schema does not contain an `email` field (`/auth/local`, `/auth/reset-password`, `/auth/change-password`). An unauthenticated attacker could include an arbitrary `email` value in the request body to obtain a fresh rate-limit key per request, effectively bypassing per-IP throttling on those routes and enabling high-volume credential brute-force, password-reset code brute-force, and credential-stuffing attempts. The rate-limit key was constructed as `${userIdentifier}:${requestPath}:${ctx.request.ip}`, where `userIdentifier = ctx.request.body.email`. On routes that legitimately use email as their identifier (e.g. `/auth/forgot-password`, `/auth/local/register`), this scoping is correct. On routes that use a different identifier (`identifier` for login, `code` for password reset, `currentPassword` for password change), the email field was not part of the route contract, but the middleware still incorporated it into the key, allowing a caller to rotate the value and obtain a unique key on every request. The patch in version 5.45.0 maintains an allow-list of routes that legitimately key on the email field and excludes that key component on every other route the middleware is mounted on. OAuth callback paths (`/connect/*`) are treated identifier-less. On routes outside the allow-list, the middleware now falls back to a fixed identifier-less key, ensuring per-IP throttling remains effective even when the request body is attacker-controlled.
Patch / fix
- npm @strapi/plugin-users-permissions 5.45.0
- strapi strapi 5.45.0
- github.com/strapi/strapi@5e0d243 commit
- github.com/strapi/strapi#24818 pull request
- github.com/strapi/strapi/releases/tag/v5.45.0 release
CISA SSVC
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- total
- Assessed
- 5 mo ago
Exploit prediction
0.49% chance of exploitation in the next 30 days, higher than 42% of all scored CVEs (FIRST EPSS, 2026-11-08).
CVSS scores
| assigned by | version | score | vector |
|---|---|---|---|
| CNA | 4.0 | 6.9 | CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N |
| CNA | 4.0 | 6.9 | CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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 |
| NVD | 3.1 | 5.3 | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L |
Affected packages
| ecosystem | package | affected | fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @strapi/plugin-users-permissions | <5.45.0 |
5.45.0 |
Affected products
- strapi strapi
- strapi @strapi/plugin-users-permissions
Classification
- Weakness
-
- CWE-307 Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts
References
-
github.com
/strapi/strapi/pull/24818
web, issue-tracking
-
github.com
/strapi/strapi/commit/5e0d243cba9830e6f791de6a94798bcde51468db
web, patch
-
github.com
/strapi/strapi/releases/tag/v5.45.0
web, patch, product
-
github.com
/strapi/strapi/security/advisories/GHSA-7mqx-wwh4-f9fw
web, vendor-advisory
-
nvd.nist.gov
/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64526
advisory
-
github.com
/strapi/strapi
package
Sources
- CVE List CVE-2025-64526
- GitHub Advisory GHSA-7mqx-wwh4-f9fw
- NVD CVE-2025-64526
Fencer Vulns keeps one entry per vulnerability: the CVE id wins, then GHSA, and records that alias each other are merged, except that two CVEs always keep separate entries. The same data is available as JSON.
CPEs and fixed versions use Anchore's correction of NVD's data: Added CPE configurations because not yet analyzed by NVD.