CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
mediumRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2025-32736

CVE-2025-32736 — PingFederate Administrative Console CSRF weaknesses

Cross-Site Request Forgery weaknesses in the Administrative Console of PingFederate versions before version 13.1 may allow actors to perform unauthorized actions via specially-crafted links triggered by administrators with active sessions.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, Ping Identity (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

0%

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

Ping Identity

PingFederate

CVSS base

4.9

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade PingFederate to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
Ping IdentityPingFederate10.0 to < 13.1Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Scope

X

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

High

User Interaction

A

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
4.9CVSS 4.0mediumPing Identity (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/SA:L/E:P

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

  • Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
  • Bypass Protection Mechanism
  • Read Application Data
  • Modify Application Data

Mitigation: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-352

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-462 · Cross-Domain Search TimingCAPEC-467 · Cross Site IdentificationCAPEC-62 · Cross Site Request ForgeryCAPEC-111 · JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

3

1 of the 3 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable PingFederate.
  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 3 public PoC repositories were reported.
web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSEDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · GHSA-hgvh-9fpj-948w published (medium)

    Aug 11, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory

  3. Added · CVSS 3.1 4.9 (AV:N)

    Aug 10, 2026 · NVD

  4. Initial · CVE published

    Aug 10, 2026 · NVD

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

  • CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 11, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

5 on the record

Coverage

1 story from the feeds we poll

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-32736 is PingFederate Administrative Console CSRF weaknesses, a medium vulnerability affecting PingFederate from Ping Identity. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 3 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 4.9 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.