VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-40625: geoserver · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects geoserverSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 2.26.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.26.0

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

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

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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Jun 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

Upgrade org.geoserver/geoserver to 2.26.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.geoserver/geoserver`pkg:maven/org.geoserver/geoserver`Other threats	Affected <2.26.0	Fixed in 2.26.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize upgrading GeoServer to version 2.26.0 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability is patched. Until the upgrade is possible, organizations should implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict outbound HTTP requests from GeoServer servers, limiting them to only trusted destinations. Monitoring and logging of outbound requests from GeoServer should be enhanced to detect anomalous or unexpected URL requests. Access controls should be reviewed to ensure that only trusted administrators have high privilege accounts capable of exploiting this vulnerability. Additionally, implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting the Coverage REST API endpoints can provide an additional layer of defense. Regular vulnerability scanning and penetration testing focusing on SSRF vectors in GeoServer deployments are recommended to identify and remediate any exploitation attempts.

Description

GeoServer is an open source server that allows users to share and edit geospatial data. The Coverage rest api /workspaces/{workspaceName}/coveragestores/{storeName}/{method}.{format} allows attackers to upload files with a specified url (with {method} equals 'url') with no restrict. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.26.0.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing GeoServer versions prior to 2.26.0, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of internal network resources. Since GeoServer is commonly used by governmental agencies, environmental organizations, and private sector companies dealing with geospatial data, exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive internal services, such as internal APIs, databases, or cloud metadata services. This could result in data leakage or reconnaissance that facilitates further attacks. The requirement for high privileges to exploit limits the risk to some extent, but insider threats or compromised accounts could still leverage this vulnerability. Additionally, SSRF can be used as a pivot point to bypass network segmentation, which is critical in environments with strict data protection regulations such as GDPR. The limited impact on integrity and availability reduces the risk of direct service disruption, but confidentiality breaches could have regulatory and reputational consequences for European entities.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Jul 2025, 20:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats