Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.28% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-46720High confidence
Keystone has an unintended `isFilterable` bypass that can be used as an oracle to match hidden fields
keystonejs · keystone
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-HG9M-67MM-7PG3 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
3.1LowCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Mitigation availableLow 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
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- 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 keystonejs keystone 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 ranges1 source-attributed range
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm@keystone-6/core | <= 6.4.0 | 6.5.0 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 5 May 2025 |
Low technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Mitigation available01
What, why and how
Keystone is a content management system for Node.js. Prior to version 6.5.0, `{field}.isFilterable` access control can be bypassed in `update` and `delete` mutations by adding additional unique filters. These filters can be used as an oracle to probe the existence or value of otherwise unreadable fields. Specifically, when a mutation includes a `where` clause with multiple unique filters (e.g. `id` and `email`), Keystone will attempt to match records even if filtering by the latter fields would normally be rejected by `field.isFilterable` or `list.defaultIsFilterable`. This can allow malicious actors to infer the presence of a particular field value when a filter is successful in returning a result. This affects any project relying on the default or dynamic `isFilterable` behavior (at the list or field level) to prevent external users from using the filtering of fields as a discovery mechanism. While this access control is respected during `findMany` operations, it was not completely enforced during `update` and `delete` mutations when accepting more than one unique `where` values in filters. This has no impact on projects using `isFilterable: false` or `defaultIsFilterable: false` for sensitive fields, or for those who have otherwise omitted filtering by these fields from their GraphQL schema. This issue has been patched in `@keystone-6/core` version 6.5.0. To mitigate this issue in older versions where patching is not a viable pathway, set `isFilterable: false` statically for relevant fields to prevent filtering by them earlier in the access control pipeline (that is, don't use functions); set `{field}.graphql.omit.read: true` for relevant fields, which implicitly removes filtering by these fields from the GraphQL schema; and/or deny `update` and `delete` operations for the relevant lists completely.
What
Keystone is a content management system for Node.js. Prior to version 6.5.0, `{field}.isFilterable` access control can be bypassed in `update` and `delete` mutations by adding additional unique filters. These filters can be used as an oracle to probe the existence or value of otherwise unreadable fields. Specifically, when a mutation includes a `where` clause with multiple unique filters (e.g. `id` and `email`), Keystone will attempt to match records even if filtering by the latter fields would normally be rejected by `field.isFilterable` or `list.defaultIsFilterable`. This can allow malicious actors to infer the presence of a particular field value when a filter is successful in returning a result. This affects any project relying on the default or dynamic `isFilterable` behavior (at the list or field level) to prevent external users from using the filtering of fields as a discovery mechanism. While this access control is respected during `findMany` operations, it was not completely enforced during `update` and `delete` mutations when accepting more than one unique `where` values in filters. This has no impact on projects using `isFilterable: false` or `defaultIsFilterable: false` for sensitive fields, or for those who have otherwise omitted filtering by these fields from their GraphQL schema. This issue has been patched in `@keystone-6/core` version 6.5.0. To mitigate this issue in older versions where patching is not a viable pathway, set `isFilterable: false` statically for relevant fields to prevent filtering by them earlier in the access control pipeline (that is, don't use functions); set `{field}.graphql.omit.read: true` for relevant fields, which implicitly removes filtering by these fields from the GraphQL schema; and/or deny `update` and `delete` operations for the relevant lists completely.
Why
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Keystone is a content management system for Node.js. Prior to version 6.5.0, `{field}.isFilterable` access control can be bypassed in `update` and `delete` mutations by adding additional unique filters. These filters can be used as an oracle to probe the existence or value of otherwise unreadable fields. Specifically, when a mutation includes a `where` clause with multiple unique filters (e.g. `id` and `email`), Keystone will attempt to match records even if filtering by the latter fields would normally be rejected by `field.isFilterable` or `list.defaultIsFilterable`. This can allow malicious actors to infer the presence of a particular field value when a filter is successful in returning a result. This affects any project relying on the default or dynamic `isFilterable` behavior (at the list or field level) to prevent external users from using the filtering of fields as a discovery mechanism. While this access control is respected during `findMany` operations, it was not completely enforced during `update` and `delete` mutations when accepting more than one unique `where` values in filters. This has no impact on projects using `isFilterable: false` or `defaultIsFilterable: false` for sensitive fields, or for those who have otherwise omitted filtering by these fields from their GraphQL schema. This issue has been patched in `@keystone-6/core` version 6.5.0. To mitigate this issue in older versions where patching is not a viable pathway, set `isFilterable: false` statically for relevant fields to prevent filtering by them earlier in the access control pipeline (that is, don't use functions); set `{field}.graphql.omit.read: true` for relevant fields, which implicitly removes filtering by these fields from the GraphQL schema; and/or deny `update` and `delete` operations for the relevant lists completely.
Why
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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 → Observable Discrepancy → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-203 ↗
CWE-203: Observable Discrepancy. The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.INoneIntegrity impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- 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. - Mitigation available
- Affected
- keystone: < 6.5.0
- Action
- Apply the mitigation in the linked authoritative guidance while planning the vendor's permanent fix.
- Workaround
- A mitigation or workaround reference is available from the source linked below; validate it against the affected product and version.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 5 May 2025 · Last source change 5 May 2025, 19:00 UTC · CWE-203 · Observable Discrepancy
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
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-2025-13412
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
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.
CVE published
Mitigation reference recorded
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.