GO-2025-4084 CVE-2025-64101 GHSA-mwmh-7px9-4c23
ZITADEL Vulnerable to Account Takeover via Malicious Forwarded Header Injection in github.com/zitadel/zitadel
High
Go
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.36%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 30.13% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-601 URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
- CWE-640 Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password
- Fix
2.71.18- Upgrade github.com/zitadel/zitadel/v2 to this version or later
Description
ZITADEL Vulnerable to Account Takeover via Malicious Forwarded Header Injection in github.com/zitadel/zitadel.
NOTE: The source advisory for this report contains additional versions that could not be automatically mapped to standard Go module versions.
(If this is causing false-positive reports from vulnerability scanners, please suggest an edit to the report.)
The additional affected modules and versions are: github.com/zitadel/zitadel before v2.71.18.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/zitadel/zitadel | all versions |
No fix yet |
| github.com/zitadel/zitadel/v2 | >= 2.0.0, < 2.71.18 |
2.71.18 |
| github.com/zitadel/zitadel/v2 | < 1.80.0-v2.20.0.20251029090537-72a5c33e6ac3 |
1.80.0-v2.20.0.20251029090537-72a5c33e6ac3 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
github.com/zitadel/zitadel/v2 Go → 2.71.18
- go
go get github.com/zitadel/zitadel/v2@v2.71.18 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
- Architecture and Design: Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
- Architecture and Design: When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "/login.asp" and ID 2 could map to "http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
- Architecture and Design: Ensure that no externally-supplied requests are honored by requiring that all redirect requests include a unique nonce generated by the application [REF-483]. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. Many open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.
- Operation: Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
CWE-640: Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Make sure that all input supplied by the user to the password recovery mechanism is thoroughly filtered and validated.
- Architecture and Design: Do not use standard weak security questions and use several security questions.
- Architecture and Design: Make sure that there is throttling on the number of incorrect answers to a security question. Disable the password recovery functionality after a certain (small) number of incorrect guesses.
- Architecture and Design: Require that the user properly answers the security question prior to resetting their password and sending the new password to the e-mail address of record.
- Architecture and Design: Never allow the user to control what e-mail address the new password will be sent to in the password recovery mechanism.
- Architecture and Design: Assign a new temporary password rather than revealing the original password.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-fgmf-7rf8-m6vf ZITADEL: Actions V1 sandbox escape: host file read via require() | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-9993-rfwp-rhwf ZITADEL: MFA bypass via session reuse in Login V2 | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-v859-c572-qh5p ZITADEL: Improper Role Revocation on Granted Projects during Multiple Role Deletions | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-jq8w-8q2f-ffm9 ZITADEL Users Can Self-Verify Email/Phone via API | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-vrh8-c9cm-wh8v ZITADEL: Unauthorized Token Privilege Escalation in OAuth2 Token Exchange | High | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-992q-9gwp-7r79 ZITADEL: Auto-linking by email: IdP-side email verification is not checked | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-v77h-2w3m-94hx ZITADEL: Missing Token Expiration (`exp`) Validation in JWT IdP Provider | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
| GHSA-g5h5-m4hm-xjrr ZITADEL: Missing Token Audience Validation (`aud`) in JWT IdP Provider | Medium | Also affects github.com/zitadel/zitadel |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor