CVE-2025-11636VulnerabilityPublished 12 Oct 2025Updated 16 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11636: Tomofun Furbo 360 · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects Tomofun Furbo 360Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
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

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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 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 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

AI-suggested

1. Network Segmentation: Isolate Furbo 360 devices on a dedicated VLAN or subnet separate from critical business systems to limit potential lateral movement. 2. Firewall Rules: Implement strict egress filtering to restrict the device's outbound HTTP requests to only trusted destinations, preventing arbitrary SSRF exploitation. 3. Monitor Network Traffic: Deploy network monitoring tools to detect unusual outbound requests originating from Furbo 360 devices, which may indicate exploitation attempts. 4. Device Inventory and Management: Maintain an up-to-date inventory of all IoT devices, including Furbo 360 cameras, and track firmware versions to identify vulnerable units. 5. Vendor Engagement: Continue attempts to engage Tomofun for patch development and apply updates promptly once available. 6. Disable Unnecessary Features: If possible, disable remote access or account handler functionalities that are not essential to reduce attack surface. 7. User Awareness: Educate users about the risks of connecting IoT devices to corporate networks and encourage use in isolated environments. 8. Incident Response Preparedness: Develop and test incident response plans that include IoT device compromise scenarios. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on network architecture adjustments and active monitoring tailored to the specific nature of this SSRF vulnerability.

Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Tomofun Furbo 360 up to FB0035_FW_036. This issue affects some unknown processing of the component Account Handler. Such manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. This attack is characterized by high complexity. The exploitability is assessed as difficult. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-11636 lies in the potential compromise of internal network security through the Furbo 360 device. If these IoT cameras are deployed within corporate or sensitive environments without adequate network segmentation, attackers exploiting this SSRF vulnerability could access internal services, potentially leading to data leakage or further lateral movement. Although the device is primarily consumer-focused, its increasing use in smart homes and possibly in small office environments means that sensitive information or systems could be indirectly exposed. The medium severity and high complexity reduce the likelihood of widespread exploitation, but targeted attacks against high-value networks remain a concern. Confidentiality and integrity of internal systems could be undermined, especially if the attacker leverages the SSRF to reach internal APIs, metadata services, or other protected resources. The absence of vendor patches increases exposure duration, emphasizing the need for proactive mitigation. The impact on availability is minimal as the vulnerability does not facilitate denial of service. Overall, European organizations should assess their network architecture to ensure that IoT devices like Furbo 360 do not provide an attack vector into critical infrastructure or sensitive data repositories.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Oct 2025, 15:22 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats