Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.18% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-13742High confidence
Limited HTML injection in emails
pretix · pretix
2.4LowCVSS 4.0
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedLow technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityLow→Operational priority:Low, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs pretix pretix and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges3 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| pippretix | >= 1.0.0, < 2025.7.3 | 2025.7.3 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 9 Jun 2026 |
| pippretix | >= 2025.8.0, < 2025.8.2 | 2025.8.2 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 9 Jun 2026 |
| pippretix | >= 2025.9.0, < 2025.9.2 | 2025.9.2 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 9 Jun 2026 |
Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Emails sent by pretix can utilize placeholders that will be filled with customer data. For example, when {name} is used in an email template, it will be replaced with the buyer's name for the final email. If the name of the attendee contained HTML or Markdown formatting, this was rendered as HTML in the resulting email. This way, a user could inject links or other formatted text through a maliciously formatted name. Since pretix applies a strict allow list approach to allowed HTML tags, this could not be abused for XSS or similarly dangerous attack chains. However, it can be used to manipulate emails in a way that makes user-provided content appear in a trustworthy and credible way, which can be abused for phishing.
What
Emails sent by pretix can utilize placeholders that will be filled with customer data. For example, when {name} is used in an email template, it will be replaced with the buyer's name for the final email. If the name of the attendee contained HTML or Markdown formatting, this was rendered as HTML in the resulting email. This way, a user could inject links or other formatted text through a maliciously formatted name. Since pretix applies a strict allow list approach to allowed HTML tags, this could not be abused for XSS or similarly dangerous attack chains. However, it can be used to manipulate emails in a way that makes user-provided content appear in a trustworthy and credible way, which can be abused for phishing.
Why
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Emails sent by pretix can utilize placeholders that will be filled with customer data. For example, when {name} is used in an email template, it will be replaced with the buyer's name for the final email. If the name of the attendee contained HTML or Markdown formatting, this was rendered as HTML in the resulting email. This way, a user could inject links or other formatted text through a maliciously formatted name. Since pretix applies a strict allow list approach to allowed HTML tags, this could not be abused for XSS or similarly dangerous attack chains. However, it can be used to manipulate emails in a way that makes user-provided content appear in a trustworthy and credible way, which can be abused for phishing.
Why
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Passive interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-116 ↗
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output. The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:L/SA:L/E:UCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VILowVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.VALowVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SALowSubsequent-system availability: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- pretix: 1.0.0 < 2025.7.0, 2025.7.0 < 2025.8.0, 2025.8.0 < 2025.9.0, 2025.9.0 < 2025.10.0
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 27 Nov 2025 · Last source change 28 Nov 2025, 15:22 UTC · CWE-116 · Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-199816
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCISA ADP
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.