VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026Updated 5 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-46651: Tiny File Manager · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% 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:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Feb 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 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

To mitigate CVE-2025-46651, organizations should implement strict validation and sanitization of user-supplied URLs in the Tiny File Manager application, ensuring that URLs resolving to localhost, loopback addresses, or internal IP ranges are rejected. Network-level controls such as firewall rules should restrict outbound HTTP requests from the application server to internal-only IP ranges. Employing network segmentation to isolate management interfaces and internal services can limit the impact of SSRF exploitation. Monitoring and logging outbound requests from the application can help detect suspicious activity indicative of SSRF attempts. Administrators should consider restricting access to Tiny File Manager to trusted networks or VPN users only. If possible, update or patch Tiny File Manager once an official fix is released. In the interim, disabling the URL upload feature or replacing it with safer alternatives can reduce exposure. Regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on SSRF vectors are recommended to identify and remediate similar issues.

Description

Tiny File Manager through 2.6 contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the URL upload feature. Due to insufficient validation of user-supplied URLs, an attacker can send crafted requests to localhost by using http://www.127.0.0.1.example.com/ or a similarly constructed domain name. This may lead to unauthorized port scanning or access to internal-only services.

Impact

For European organizations, this SSRF vulnerability could lead to unauthorized reconnaissance of internal network services, potentially exposing sensitive infrastructure details. Attackers could map internal ports and services, which may facilitate subsequent targeted attacks or lateral movement within the network. Organizations that expose Tiny File Manager to the internet or untrusted networks are particularly vulnerable. The confidentiality of internal network topology and service configurations is at risk, which could impact sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise data integrity or availability, the information gained through SSRF could be used to orchestrate more damaging attacks. Given the medium severity and the requirement for low privileges, the threat level is moderate but should not be underestimated, especially in environments with weak network segmentation or insufficient internal access controls.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Feb 2026, 11:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats