VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jul 2025Updated 9 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-0292: Ivanti Connect Secure · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Ivanti Connect SecureSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: 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: 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 8 Jul 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 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

Organizations should immediately verify their Ivanti Connect Secure and Ivanti Policy Secure versions and upgrade to the fixed versions 22.7R2.8 and 22.7R1.5 or later once available. In the absence of a patch, administrators should restrict access to the administrative interfaces of these products to trusted management networks and enforce strong multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all admin accounts to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Network segmentation should be reviewed and tightened to limit the ability of the VPN appliance to reach sensitive internal services unnecessarily. Monitoring and logging of administrative actions and unusual internal requests originating from the VPN appliance should be enhanced to detect potential exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should conduct regular audits of administrator accounts to ensure only necessary privileges are granted and consider implementing just-in-time access controls. Incident response plans should be updated to include detection and containment strategies for SSRF exploitation scenarios.

Description

SSRF in Ivanti Connect Secure before version 22.7R2.8 and Ivanti Policy Secure before version 22.7R1.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin rights to access internal network services.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on Ivanti Connect Secure or Ivanti Policy Secure for remote access and VPN services. Exploitation could allow attackers with administrative credentials to bypass network segmentation and access internal services that may contain sensitive personal data, intellectual property, or critical infrastructure controls. This could lead to data breaches, unauthorized data disclosure, and potential disruption of business operations. Given the GDPR regulatory environment in Europe, any unauthorized access to personal data could also result in substantial compliance penalties and reputational damage. Furthermore, the ability to pivot internally increases the risk of lateral movement by attackers, potentially enabling more severe attacks such as ransomware deployment or espionage. The requirement for admin privileges reduces the likelihood of exploitation by external attackers without credentials but raises concerns about insider threats or compromised administrator accounts. Organizations with complex internal networks and critical infrastructure are at higher risk if this vulnerability is exploited.

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

forums.ivanti.com/s/article/July-Security-Advisory-Ivanti-Connect-Secure-and-Ivanti-Policy-Secure-Multiple-CVEs (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Jul 2025, 21:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats