CVE-2025-62523
Thm Pilos ≤ 4.8.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-62523 is a medium-severity Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy with Untrusted Domains (CWE-942) vulnerability in Thm Pilos. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Drive-by Compromise (T1189); ranked at the 9th 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 AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-36363
Vulnerability Data
PILOS (Platform for Interactive Live-Online Seminars) is a frontend for BigBlueButton. PILOS before 4.8.0 includes a Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) misconfiguration in its middleware: it reflects the Origin request header back in the Access-Control-Allow-Origin response header without proper validation or…
more
a whitelist, while Access-Control-Allow-Credentials is set to true. This behavior could allow a malicious website on a different origin to send requests (including credentials) to the PILOS API. This may enable exfiltration or actions using the victim’s credentials if the server accepts those cross-origin requests as authenticated. Laravel’s session handling applies additional origin checks such that cross-origin requests are not authenticated by default. Because of these session-origin protections, and in the absence of any other unknown vulnerabilities that would bypass Laravel’s origin/session checks, this reflected-Origin CORS misconfiguration is not believed to be exploitable in typical PILOS deployments. This vulnerability has been patched in PILOS in v4.8.0
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.4.3V3.4.6V3.5.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement requires approved authorizations and would reject policies permitting untrusted domains.
Boundary protection at external interfaces stops unauthorized cross-domain communication allowed by permissive policies.
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.
Hardened configuration baselines and reviews directly prevent permissive CSP or cross-domain policies.
Secure SDLC activities include review and testing of web security policies to avoid untrusted domains.
Vulnerability identification processes can surface permissive policy misconfigurations.
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 can detect overly permissive cross-domain policies but does not prevent their initial introduction.
Network security policies can restrict cross-domain communication but do not specifically mandate strict CSP or cross-domain policy configuration.
Security of network services includes defining allowed endpoints, which can limit untrusted domains but does not directly address web-client policy files.
Web filtering can block untrusted domains at the network level, partially mitigating permissive cross-domain policies.
Application security requirements should specify secure CSP and cross-domain policy settings, directly addressing the weakness.
Secure architecture principles include defining trust boundaries, which can reduce permissive cross-domain allowances.