CVE-2025-65328
Mega-Fence Project Mega-Fence ≤ 25.1.914
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-65328 is a medium-severity Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision (CWE-807) vulnerability in Mega-Fence Project Mega-Fence. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 15th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-0812
Vulnerability Data
Mega-Fence (webgate-lib.*) 25.1.914 and prior trusts the first value of the X-Forwarded-For (XFF) header as the client IP without validating a trusted proxy chain. An attacker can supply an arbitrary XFF value in a remote request to spoof the client…
more
IP, which is then propagated to security-relevant state (e.g., WG_CLIENT_IP cookie). Deployments that rely on this value for IP allowlists may be bypassed.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Explicitly requires that every access decision be based on authoritative, protected decision data rather than caller-supplied inputs.
Input validation can reject malformed or attacker-controlled values before they reach a security decision point.
Access enforcement requires decisions to be made from trusted policy data rather than modifiable client-supplied inputs.
Information-flow enforcement applies rules to validated, internal attributes instead of untrusted external values.
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.
Strong authentication mechanisms directly prevent security decisions from depending on modifiable, untrusted inputs.
Verification and protection of identity assertions stops reliance on attacker-controlled values for authorization decisions.
Proper management of identities/credentials reduces the chance that security decisions will be driven by untrusted inputs.
Policy-driven, least-privilege authorization reduces opportunities to bypass controls via tampered inputs.
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.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit using untrusted inputs for security-critical decisions.
Security testing in development catches input-validation flaws before deployment.
Monitoring can detect exploitation but does not stop the underlying weakness.
Application security requirements explicitly call for validation of inputs used in security decisions.
Secure architecture principles mandate treating all external inputs as untrusted.
Access-control rules can be bypassed if they rely on untrusted inputs.