CVE-2025-45475VulnerabilityPublished 27 May 2025Updated 29 May 2025

CVE-2025-45475: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 May 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
n/a n/a	Affected =2025.1000.4047	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Restrict and validate all user inputs in the Friend Link Management feature to ensure URLs or requests cannot be manipulated to target internal or unauthorized endpoints. 2. Implement strict allowlists for outbound requests initiated by the CMS, limiting them to known safe domains. 3. Apply network segmentation and firewall rules to prevent the CMS server from making arbitrary requests to internal services that should not be externally accessible. 4. Monitor logs for unusual outbound request patterns originating from the CMS, especially to internal IP ranges or unexpected external domains. 5. Enforce the principle of least privilege for user accounts, minimizing the number of users with access to Friend Link Management. 6. Stay alert for vendor patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 7. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on SSRF and related web vulnerabilities in the CMS environment. 8. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules tuned to detect and block SSRF attempts targeting the CMS.

Description

maccms10 v2025.1000.4047 is vulnerable to Server-Side request forgery (SSRF) in Friend Link Management.

Impact

For European organizations, this SSRF vulnerability poses a moderate risk, especially for those using maccms10 CMS or similar platforms with Friend Link Management features. Exploitation could allow attackers to pivot into internal networks, accessing sensitive internal services such as databases, metadata services, or internal APIs that are not exposed externally. This could lead to unauthorized data disclosure or service disruption. Given the medium severity, the threat is not immediately critical but could be leveraged as part of a multi-stage attack chain, especially in environments where internal network segmentation is weak. Organizations handling sensitive personal data under GDPR could face compliance risks if internal data is exposed. Additionally, availability impacts could disrupt web services, affecting business continuity. The requirement for low privileges means that an attacker would need some level of access, such as a compromised user account, which raises the importance of strong access controls and monitoring. The absence of known exploits suggests that immediate widespread attacks are unlikely, but proactive mitigation is advisable.

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

yuque.com/morysummer/vx41bz/dzidfm8vn2h5k1lb (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2025, 00:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats