VulnerabilityPublished 9 Sep 2025Updated 10 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-44594: halo · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 9 Sep 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 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

AI-suggested

Immediate patching: Organizations should monitor halo vendor advisories closely and apply security patches as soon as they become available.
Network segmentation: Restrict the halo server's outbound network access to only trusted external endpoints and block access to internal management interfaces and cloud metadata IP ranges (e.g., 169.254.169.254).
Input validation: Implement strict validation and sanitization on URLs accepted by the upload-from-url API to prevent requests to internal IP ranges or unauthorized domains.
Web application firewall (WAF): Deploy WAF rules to detect and block SSRF attack patterns targeting the vulnerable endpoint.
Monitoring and logging: Enable detailed logging of outbound requests from the halo server and monitor for unusual or unauthorized internal requests.
Access controls: Limit exposure of the vulnerable API endpoint to trusted users or networks where possible.
Incident response readiness: Prepare to detect and respond to potential SSRF exploitation attempts, including network traffic analysis and endpoint forensics. These measures combined reduce the risk of exploitation while awaiting official patches.

Description

halo v2.20.17 and before is vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF) in /apis/uc.api.storage.halo.run/v1alpha1/attachments/-/upload-from-url.

Impact

For European organizations using halo v2.20.17 or earlier, this vulnerability presents a severe risk. SSRF can be leveraged to access internal services that are otherwise protected by firewalls, such as internal APIs, databases, or cloud provider metadata endpoints (e.g., AWS, Azure, GCP). This can lead to unauthorized data disclosure, credential theft, or lateral movement within the network. Given the critical CVSS score and no requirement for authentication, attackers can exploit this remotely over the internet, increasing the attack surface. Organizations in sectors with sensitive data—such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure—are particularly at risk. The ability to compromise confidentiality and integrity without impacting availability means attackers can stealthily exfiltrate data or manipulate internal systems without immediate detection. Additionally, the lack of known public exploits suggests that proactive mitigation is essential before attackers develop or deploy exploit code. The vulnerability could also be used as a foothold for more complex attacks, including ransomware or espionage campaigns targeting European entities.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

meadow-horn-b94.notion.site/halo-ssrf-14c42bd5b11880c09936df07f58f5bed?pvs=74 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Sep 2025, 01:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats