CVE-2025-10397VulnerabilityPublished 14 Sep 2025Updated 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10397: Magicblack MacCMS · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects Magicblack MacCMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Sep 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 2026-10-25.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Magicblack MacCMS	Affected =2025.1000.4050	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this SSRF vulnerability effectively, European organizations should: 1) Immediately audit and restrict access to the affected MacCMS API Handler, especially the 'cjurl' parameter, applying strict input validation and sanitization to ensure only allowed URLs or domains can be requested. 2) Implement network-level controls such as egress filtering and firewall rules to prevent the CMS server from making unauthorized outbound requests to internal or sensitive network segments. 3) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious SSRF payloads targeting the 'cjurl' parameter. 4) Monitor logs for unusual outbound HTTP requests originating from the CMS server, focusing on internal IP ranges or unexpected external destinations. 5) Segregate the CMS infrastructure from critical internal systems using network segmentation and zero-trust principles to limit lateral movement in case of compromise. 6) Engage with Magicblack for patches or updates and apply them promptly once available. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on SSRF and API security to identify and remediate similar issues proactively.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in Magicblack MacCMS 2025.1000.4050. This affects an unknown part of the component API Handler. The manipulation of the argument cjurl leads to server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Impact

For European organizations using Magicblack MacCMS 2025.1000.4050, this SSRF vulnerability poses a moderate risk. Exploitation could allow attackers to pivot from the compromised CMS server into internal networks, potentially accessing sensitive internal services, databases, or administrative interfaces that are otherwise protected by network segmentation. This could lead to unauthorized data access, internal reconnaissance, or further exploitation chains. Given the CMS's role in managing media content, organizations in media, entertainment, and digital publishing sectors are particularly at risk. Additionally, SSRF can be leveraged to bypass firewalls or access cloud metadata services, which could lead to credential theft or privilege escalation in cloud environments. The medium severity rating suggests that while the vulnerability is not immediately critical, it could serve as a foothold for more severe attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities or misconfigurations. European organizations with strict data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR) must be cautious, as exploitation leading to data breaches could result in regulatory penalties and reputational damage.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Sep 2025, 00:33 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats