VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-13814: moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2 · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2Source CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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: 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

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: 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.
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 1 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2	Affected =5.0 =5.1 =5.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediately audit all instances of Mogu Blog v2 within the organization to identify affected versions (5.0, 5.1, 5.2).
Restrict network egress from the web server hosting Mogu Blog to only necessary external endpoints, implementing strict firewall rules to prevent arbitrary outbound requests.
Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious requests targeting the /file/uploadPicsByUrl endpoint or containing unusual URL parameters.
If possible, disable or restrict the uploadPictureByUrl functionality until a vendor patch or official fix is available.
Monitor logs for unusual outbound HTTP requests originating from the blogging server, especially to internal IP ranges or unexpected external domains.
Segment the blogging platform server from critical internal networks to limit potential lateral movement.
Engage in threat intelligence sharing to stay updated on any emerging exploits or patches.
Consider implementing input validation proxies or reverse proxies that sanitize or block malicious URL inputs.
Prepare incident response plans specific to SSRF exploitation scenarios.
Advocate for vendor engagement or consider alternative blogging platforms if remediation is delayed.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in moxi159753 Mogu Blog v2 up to 5.2. Impacted is the function LocalFileServiceImpl.uploadPictureByUrl of the file /file/uploadPicsByUrl. The manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations running Mogu Blog v2 up to version 5.2, this SSRF vulnerability poses a moderate risk. Exploitation could allow attackers to access internal network resources that are otherwise inaccessible externally, potentially leading to information disclosure or pivoting attacks. Confidentiality could be compromised if sensitive internal endpoints are queried. Integrity and availability impacts are limited but possible if the SSRF is chained with other vulnerabilities or used to trigger denial-of-service conditions on internal services. Since no authentication is required, any exposed instance of the vulnerable software is at risk. The lack of vendor response and patches increases exposure time. Organizations in sectors with sensitive internal networks or regulatory requirements (e.g., finance, healthcare, government) may face compliance and reputational risks if exploited. The medium severity rating suggests prioritizing mitigation but not immediate emergency response unless evidence of active exploitation emerges.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Dec 2025, 08:45 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats