CVE-2025-14518VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025Updated 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-14518: PowerJob · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects PowerJobSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 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 28% 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 11 Dec 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
Maventech/powerjob/PowerJob`pkg:maven/tech/powerjob/PowerJob`Other threats	Affected =5.1.0 =5.1.1 =5.1.2	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-14518, organizations should take several specific actions beyond generic advice: 1) Immediately restrict network access to the PowerJob server, limiting outbound connections to only trusted and necessary destinations to reduce the SSRF attack surface. 2) Implement strict input validation and sanitization on the targetIp and targetPort parameters in the checkConnectivity function or any similar network request handling code, ensuring only authorized and expected IP addresses and ports are accepted. 3) Monitor network traffic originating from PowerJob servers for unusual or unauthorized outbound requests that may indicate exploitation attempts. 4) Apply network segmentation to isolate PowerJob servers from sensitive internal services to limit potential SSRF impact. 5) Upgrade PowerJob to a patched version once available from the vendor or community, or apply vendor-provided patches promptly. 6) Employ application-layer firewalls or web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting PowerJob. 7) Review and restrict user privileges on PowerJob to the minimum necessary, as exploitation requires low privileges but not full administrative rights. 8) Conduct regular security assessments and code reviews focusing on network request handling components to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in PowerJob up to 5.1.2. This vulnerability affects the function checkConnectivity of the file src/main/java/tech/powerjob/common/utils/net/PingPongUtils.java of the component Network Request Handler. The manipulation of the argument targetIp/targetPort leads to server-side request forgery. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in PowerJob can have significant impacts on organizations using affected versions. Attackers exploiting this flaw can leverage the server to access internal network resources that are typically inaccessible externally, potentially leading to unauthorized data disclosure, internal reconnaissance, or pivoting to other internal systems. This can compromise confidentiality by exposing sensitive internal services and data, and may affect integrity if attackers use the SSRF to interact with internal APIs or services that modify data. Availability could also be impacted if the attacker uses the SSRF to trigger resource-intensive requests or attacks on internal infrastructure. Given PowerJob’s role in orchestrating distributed job execution, exploitation could disrupt automated workflows or lead to unauthorized job execution. Organizations with complex internal networks or sensitive internal services are at higher risk. The medium CVSS score reflects that while the vulnerability is exploitable remotely and without user interaction, it requires some level of privilege, limiting the attack surface but still posing a notable risk. The availability of a public exploit increases the likelihood of attempted attacks, especially in environments where patching is delayed.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 24 Feb 2026, 22:55 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats