CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-65922

Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames

Published: Jan 05, 2026 | Modified: Jan 08, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

PLANKA 2.0.0 lacks X-Frame-Options and CSP frame-ancestors headers, allowing the application to be embedded within malicious iframes. While this does not lead to unintended modification of projects or tasks, it exposes users to Phishing attacks. Attackers can frame the legitimate Planka application on a malicious site to establish false trust (UI Redressing), potentially tricking users into entering sensitive information or credentials into overlaid fake forms. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because PLANKA uses SameSite=Strict cookies, preventing authentication in cross-origin contexts. No session can be established. No credential interception or unauthorized actions are possible. Browser Same-Origin Policy prevents the parent page from accessing iframe content. Clickjacking is not applicable on the login page. Any credential capture would require attacker-controlled input and user interaction equivalent to phishing. The security outcome depends entirely on the users trust in the parent page. An attacker can achieve the same effect with a fully fake login page. Embedding the legitimate page adds no risk, as browsers do not show URL, certificate, or padlock indicators in cross-origin iframes.

Weakness

The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain, which can lead to user confusion about which interface the user is interacting with.

Potential Mitigations

  • The use of X-Frame-Options allows developers of web content to restrict the usage of their application within the form of overlays, frames, or iFrames. The developer can indicate from which domains can frame the content.
  • The concept of X-Frame-Options is well documented, but implementation of this protection mechanism is in development to cover gaps. There is a need for allowing frames from multiple domains.
  • A developer can use a “frame-breaker” script in each page that should not be framed. This is very helpful for legacy browsers that do not support X-Frame-Options security feature previously mentioned.
  • It is also important to note that this tactic has been circumvented or bypassed. Improper usage of frames can persist in the web application through nested frames. The “frame-breaking” script does not intuitively account for multiple nested frames that can be presented to the user.

References