VulnerabilityPublished 1 Jan 2026Updated 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-15414: sonic · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects sonicSource 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: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% 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 1 Jan 2026
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
go-sonic sonic	Affected =1.1.0 =1.1.1 =1.1.2 =1.1.3 =1.1.4	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-15414, organizations should implement several specific measures beyond generic advice: 1) Immediately audit all deployments of go-sonic sonic and identify versions 1.1.0 through 1.1.4 in use. 2) If possible, restrict or disable the Theme Fetching API or the FetchTheme function until a vendor patch is available. 3) Implement strict input validation and sanitization on the 'uri' parameter to ensure only trusted and expected URIs are processed, using allowlists for domains and protocols. 4) Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to prevent the go-sonic server from making arbitrary outbound requests, especially to internal IP ranges and sensitive endpoints such as cloud metadata services. 5) Monitor outgoing HTTP requests from the server for unusual or unauthorized destinations. 6) Use web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious SSRF exploitation attempts targeting the vulnerable API. 7) Engage with the vendor or community to track patch releases or community fixes and apply updates promptly once available. 8) Consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) or other behavioral monitoring tools to detect anomalous request patterns indicative of SSRF exploitation.

Description

A flaw has been found in go-sonic sonic up to 1.1.4. The affected element is the function FetchTheme of the file service/theme/git_fetcher.go of the component Theme Fetching API. Executing a manipulation of the argument uri can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in go-sonic sonic can have significant impacts on affected organizations. Attackers exploiting this flaw can coerce the server into making arbitrary HTTP requests, potentially accessing internal network resources that are otherwise inaccessible externally. This can lead to unauthorized information disclosure, such as internal IP addresses, sensitive services, or cloud metadata endpoints containing credentials. Additionally, SSRF can be a stepping stone for further attacks, including lateral movement within the network or exploitation of other internal vulnerabilities. The medium CVSS score reflects moderate impact, but the lack of authentication and user interaction requirements increases the threat level. Organizations using go-sonic sonic in sensitive or segmented environments are at risk of internal network reconnaissance and data leakage. The absence of vendor patches or mitigations further elevates the risk, as attackers can leverage publicly available exploits. The impact extends to confidentiality, integrity, and availability, though to a limited degree, as SSRF primarily facilitates information gathering and indirect attacks rather than direct code execution or denial of service.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…