CVE-2025-10471VulnerabilityPublished 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10471: ZKEACMS · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects ZKEACMSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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: Low
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
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 15 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 2026-10-26.

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
ZKEACMS	Affected =4.3	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include restricting access to the Proxy function by implementing strict input validation and sanitization on the 'url' parameter to allow only trusted and whitelisted domains or IP addresses. 2. Network-level controls such as egress filtering should be enforced to prevent the CMS server from making unauthorized outbound requests to internal or sensitive network segments. 3. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules tuned to detect and block SSRF attack patterns targeting the Proxy endpoint. 4. Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests originating from the CMS server, especially to internal IP ranges or unexpected external domains. 5. If possible, disable or restrict the Proxy functionality until a vendor patch is available. 6. Segregate the CMS server in a network zone with limited access to internal resources to minimize potential impact. 7. Stay updated with vendor advisories and apply official patches promptly once released. 8. Conduct security assessments and penetration testing focused on SSRF and related vulnerabilities in the CMS environment to identify and remediate similar issues.

Description

A vulnerability was detected in ZKEACMS 4.3. Impacted is the function Proxy of the file src/ZKEACMS/Controllers/MediaController.cs. Performing manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using ZKEACMS 4.3, this SSRF vulnerability poses a moderate risk. Attackers could leverage this flaw to access internal systems that are otherwise protected by network segmentation or firewalls, potentially exposing sensitive internal APIs, databases, or administrative interfaces. This could lead to unauthorized data access, information leakage, or serve as a foothold for further lateral movement within the network. Given the widespread use of CMS platforms in European public sector, healthcare, education, and private enterprises, exploitation could disrupt critical services or compromise sensitive data. The medium CVSS score suggests that while direct system compromise or data destruction is less likely, the SSRF could be a stepping stone for more severe attacks. Additionally, the public availability of exploit code increases the likelihood of opportunistic attacks, especially against organizations that have not applied mitigations. The vulnerability's remote exploitability without authentication makes it particularly dangerous for internet-facing ZKEACMS instances. European organizations with strict data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR) could face compliance and reputational risks if internal data is exposed due to this vulnerability.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Sep 2025, 01:00 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats