Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-67844

Mintlify ≤ 2025-11-15

Public PoC
Published
19 December 2025
Modified
02 January 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.0
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0038 31th percentile
Risk Priority 39 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-67844 is a medium-severity Forced Browsing (CWE-425) vulnerability in Mintlify Mintlify. Its CVSS base score is 5.0 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 31th 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

The GitHub Integration API in Mintlify Platform before 2025-11-15 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive repository metadata via the repository owner and name fields. It fails to validate that the repository owner and name fields provided during configuration belong to…

more

the specific GitHub App Installation ID associated with the user's organization.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1083 File and Directory Discovery Discovery
Adversaries may enumerate files and directories or may search in specific locations of a host or network share for certain information within a file system.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-67846Same product: Mintlify Mintlify
CVE-2025-67845Same product: Mintlify Mintlify
CVE-2025-67842Same product: Mintlify Mintlify
CVE-2025-67843Same product: Mintlify Mintlify
CVE-2023-1682Shared CWE-425
CVE-2024-7753Shared CWE-425
CVE-2025-27581Shared CWE-425
CVE-2025-52920Shared CWE-425
CVE-2024-0456Shared CWE-425
CVE-2026-34028Shared CWE-425

Affected Assets

mintlify
mintlify
≤ 2025-11-15

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

AC-3 directly requires enforcement of authorizations for access to resources such as URLs, scripts, and files, structurally preventing forced browsing.

AC-24 requires that access-control decisions be applied to every request, addressing the missing enforcement on restricted URLs.

AC-6 requires restricting authorizations to the minimum needed, reducing the set of resources that must be protected against direct requests.

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.

PR.AA-05 full match
prevents

Directly requires policy-driven definition, enforcement, and review of authorizations on resources such as URLs.

PR.IR-01 mostly match
prevents

Protects environments from unauthorized logical access, which includes preventing direct requests to restricted paths.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect forced-browsing flaws, but the control itself does not prevent them in production.

prevents

Information access restriction implements the technical enforcement that directly blocks unauthorized direct requests.

prevents

Access control policy directly requires authorization checks on all resources, preventing forced browsing.

degrades

Managing access rights ensures every URL/script/file is explicitly authorized, mitigating direct request attacks.

degrades

Privileged access rights control enforces least-privilege checks on restricted endpoints.

prevents

Secure SDLC can include authorization design, yet the control itself does not guarantee runtime enforcement.

References