CVE-2025-27094
Enalean Tuleap ≤ 16.3-9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-27094 is a medium-severity Expected Behavior Violation (CWE-440) vulnerability in Enalean Tuleap. Its CVSS base score is 5.4 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 28th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-6 (Security and Privacy Function Verification) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6009
Vulnerability Data
Tuleap is an open-source suite designed to improve software development management and collaboration. A malicious user with access to a tracker could force-reset certain field configurations, leading to potential information loss. The display time attribute for the date field, the…
more
size attribute for the multiselectbox field, the default value, number of rows, and columns attributes for the text field, and the default value, size, and max characters attributes for the string field configurations are lost when added as criteria in a saved report. Additionally, in Tuleap Community Edition versions 16.4.99.1739806825 to 16.4.99.1739877910, this issue could be exploited to prevent access to tracker data by triggering a crash. This vulnerability has been fixed in Tuleap Community Edition 16.4.99.1739877910 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition 16.3-9 and 16.4-4.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly checks whether implemented functions match their specifications.
Security function verification confirms that functions operate according to their defined expected behavior.
Requiring a documented security architecture and design reduces the chance that implementation deviates from intended behavior.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly enforce specification compliance and catch expected-behavior violations during development.
Security testing and exercises help discover behavior deviations before deployment.
Vulnerability identification can surface spec-violating flaws, while eliminating the weakness reduces some vulnerability backlog.
Routine software maintenance and patching can remediate discovered specification violations.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance validates that functions behave as specified.
Secure development life cycle mandates verification against specifications, directly reducing expected-behavior violations.
Application security requirements explicitly define expected behavior that must be met.
Secure coding practices enforce adherence to functional specifications during implementation.
Change management can catch specification deviations introduced by modifications.
Documented operating procedures reduce the chance that functions deviate from intended behavior.