VulnerabilityPublished 1 Apr 2025Updated 28 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-31135: phires go-guerrilla · Improper Input Validation

Affects phires go-guerrillaSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.6.7 when convenient.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC

CVSS 3.1 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 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.7

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Apr 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 5 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Upgrade github.com/phires/go-guerrilla to 1.6.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/phires/go-guerrilla`pkg:golang/github.com/phires/go-guerrilla`Other threats	Affected <1.6.7	Fixed in 1.6.7

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all go-guerrilla SMTP daemon instances to version 1.6.7 or later, where this vulnerability is patched. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, administrators should disable the ProxyOn feature to prevent processing of PROXY commands. Network-level controls should be implemented to restrict SMTP access to trusted reverse proxies only, minimizing exposure to untrusted clients. Additionally, organizations should audit their SMTP logs for suspicious multiple PROXY commands or anomalous IP address changes within sessions. Deploying intrusion detection systems (IDS) or email security gateways capable of detecting proxy protocol anomalies can help identify exploitation attempts. Reviewing and tightening IP-based access control lists and anti-spam rules to consider this vulnerability is advisable. Finally, organizations should ensure that their incident response teams are aware of this issue and prepared to investigate potential spoofing incidents.

Description

Go-Guerrilla SMTP Daemon is a lightweight SMTP server written in Go. Prior to 1.6.7, when ProxyOn is enabled, the PROXY command will be accepted multiple times, with later invocations overriding earlier ones. The proxy protocol only supports one initial PROXY header; anything after that is considered part of the exchange between client and server, so the client is free to send further PROXY commands with whatever data it pleases.go-guerrilla will treat these as coming from the reverse proxy, allowing a client to spoof its IP address. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.6.7.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of SMTP client identification. Organizations relying on go-guerrilla SMTP servers with ProxyOn enabled may have their IP-based access controls circumvented, allowing unauthorized senders to relay mail or bypass anti-spam and anti-abuse filters. Spoofed IP addresses can also corrupt email logs and monitoring data, complicating incident response and forensic investigations. This could lead to increased spam, phishing, or malware distribution through compromised or misconfigured mail infrastructure. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise data confidentiality or server availability, the trustworthiness of email source information is undermined, which is critical for compliance with European data protection and cybersecurity regulations. Organizations with strict email security policies or those operating in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, or government are particularly at risk. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests limited immediate threat but does not preclude future exploitation attempts.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Jan 2026, 23:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats