VulnerabilityPublished 5 Oct 2025Updated 7 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11286: samanhappy MCPHub · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects samanhappy MCPHubSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 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 23% 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 5 Oct 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
samanhappy MCPHub	Affected =0.9.0 =0.9.1 =0.9.2 =0.9.3 =0.9.4 =0.9.5 =0.9.6 =0.9.7 =0.9.8 =0.9.9 =0.9.10	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, restrict outbound HTTP/HTTPS requests from MCPHub servers using network-level controls such as firewall rules or proxy filtering to limit the server's ability to reach unauthorized internal or external endpoints. Second, apply strict input validation and sanitization on the baseUrl parameter at the application or web server level if possible, to block suspicious or unexpected URL patterns. Third, deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SSRF attack patterns targeting MCPHub endpoints. Fourth, conduct thorough network segmentation to isolate MCPHub servers from sensitive internal resources, minimizing the impact of potential SSRF exploitation. Fifth, monitor logs and network traffic for unusual outbound requests originating from MCPHub instances. Finally, maintain an active vulnerability management process to promptly apply vendor patches once available and consider alternative software solutions if MCPHub remains unsupported.

Description

A vulnerability was determined in samanhappy MCPHub up to 0.9.10. This affects an unknown part of the file src/controllers/serverController.ts of the component MCPRouter Service. This manipulation of the argument baseUrl causes server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the SSRF vulnerability in MCPHub poses a significant risk, particularly for those using MCPHub in critical infrastructure, telecommunications, or enterprise network management. Exploitation could allow attackers to pivot from the exposed MCPHub server into internal networks, accessing sensitive data or internal APIs not intended for external exposure. This could lead to data breaches, unauthorized information disclosure, or facilitate lateral movement for more severe attacks. The medium severity rating reflects moderate impact potential; however, the lack of vendor patching increases exposure duration. Organizations with MCPHub deployments in sectors such as finance, healthcare, or government could face regulatory and compliance risks under GDPR if personal or sensitive data is compromised. Additionally, SSRF can be a stepping stone for more complex attacks, including server compromise or denial of service if internal services are disrupted. The risk is amplified in environments where network segmentation is weak or where MCPHub has elevated privileges or access to critical backend systems.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Oct 2025, 07:13 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats