VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jan 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-6605: fedora · Resource Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.2High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jan 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

Update FFmpeg to the latest patched version as soon as it becomes available from official sources or trusted package maintainers.
If immediate patching is not possible, restrict network access for processes running FFmpeg, using firewall rules or network segmentation to limit outbound HTTP requests.
Implement input validation and sanitization on DASH playlists before processing them with FFmpeg, ensuring URLs are from trusted sources or conform to expected patterns.
Monitor network traffic originating from FFmpeg processes for unusual or unexpected HTTP requests, using intrusion detection systems or network monitoring tools.
Employ application whitelisting or sandboxing techniques to limit the capabilities of FFmpeg processes.
Educate developers and system administrators about the risks of processing untrusted media content and enforce strict content ingestion policies.
Review and update incident response plans to include scenarios involving resource injection or SSRF-like attacks via media processing tools.

Description

A flaw was found in FFmpeg's DASH playlist support. This vulnerability allows arbitrary HTTP GET requests to be made on behalf of the machine running FFmpeg via a crafted DASH playlist containing malicious URLs.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-6605 can be significant, especially for those relying on FFmpeg for media processing, streaming, or content delivery. Attackers could exploit this vulnerability to perform unauthorized HTTP requests from within the organization's network, potentially bypassing firewall restrictions or network segmentation. This could lead to information disclosure about internal network configurations or allow attackers to reach otherwise inaccessible internal or external resources. Additionally, attackers might use this capability to conduct further attacks such as SSRF (Server-Side Request Forgery), pivoting within the network, or abusing the victim's IP reputation. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise system integrity or availability, the indirect consequences could affect confidentiality and trustworthiness of media processing pipelines. Organizations in sectors like broadcasting, media production, telecommunications, and cloud service providers hosting media services are particularly at risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the high severity score and ease of exploitation warrant proactive measures.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…