CVE-2025-15098VulnerabilityPublished 26 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-15098: YunaiV yudao-cloud · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects YunaiV yudao-cloudSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% 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 26 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 2026-10-25.

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
GitHubyunaiv/yudao-cloud`pkg:github/yunaiv/yudao-cloud`Other threats	Affected =2025.0 =2025.1 =2025.2 =2025.3 =2025.4 =2025.5 =2025.6 =2025.7 =2025.8 =2025.9 =2025.10 =2025.11	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all URL, header, and body parameters accepted by the BPM triggers to prevent injection of malicious requests. 2. Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict the yudao-cloud server's outbound HTTP requests to only trusted and necessary endpoints, blocking access to internal or sensitive resources. 3. Monitor and log all outbound HTTP requests from the BPM component to detect anomalous or unexpected destinations indicative of SSRF exploitation attempts. 4. Use web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block SSRF attack patterns targeting the vulnerable functions. 5. If possible, isolate the BPM service in a dedicated environment with limited network privileges to minimize the impact of potential SSRF exploitation. 6. Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or updates and apply them promptly once available. 7. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on SSRF vectors within BPM workflows. 8. Educate development and operations teams about SSRF risks and secure coding practices related to HTTP request handling.

Description

A vulnerability was determined in YunaiV yudao-cloud up to 2025.11. This affects the function BpmHttpCallbackTrigger/BpmSyncHttpRequestTrigger of the component Business Process Management. Executing manipulation of the argument url/header/body can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. 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, this SSRF vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized internal network access, potentially exposing sensitive internal services, databases, or cloud metadata endpoints. Organizations using yudao-cloud BPM in sectors such as finance, manufacturing, healthcare, or government could face data breaches, operational disruptions, or lateral movement by attackers. The ability to perform SSRF without authentication or user interaction increases the likelihood of automated exploitation attempts. Given the vendor's lack of response, organizations may remain exposed for extended periods, increasing risk exposure. The impact on confidentiality is moderate due to potential data leakage, while integrity and availability impacts are lower but possible if internal services are manipulated or overwhelmed. The vulnerability could also facilitate further attacks, such as privilege escalation or pivoting within corporate networks. European entities with complex BPM workflows relying on yudao-cloud may experience operational risks if attackers exploit this flaw to disrupt business processes or access proprietary information.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Dec 2025, 03:30 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats