VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48962: Acronis Cyber Protect 16 · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects Acronis Cyber Protect 16Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 39938 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.0 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 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 39938

CVSS:3.0/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 4 Jun 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

Upgrade Acronis Cyber Protect 16 to 39938.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Acronis Acronis Cyber Protect 16	Affected <39938	Fixed in 39938

AI-suggested

Until then, it is critical to restrict access to the management interfaces of Acronis Cyber Protect to trusted administrators only, ideally through network segmentation and firewall rules that limit exposure to internal IP ranges. Implement strict access controls and monitor for unusual internal requests originating from the Acronis server that could indicate SSRF exploitation attempts. Employ network-level protections such as egress filtering to prevent unauthorized outbound requests from the server to sensitive internal services. Conduct thorough audits of user privileges on the Acronis system to ensure that only necessary accounts have access, minimizing the risk of privilege misuse. Additionally, organizations should review logs for anomalous activity and consider deploying intrusion detection systems capable of identifying SSRF patterns. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to quickly address any potential exploitation.

Description

Sensitive information disclosure due to SSRF. The following products are affected: Acronis Cyber Protect 16 (Windows, Linux) before build 39938.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this SSRF vulnerability in Acronis Cyber Protect 16 could be significant, especially for enterprises relying on this product for backup, disaster recovery, and cybersecurity management. Sensitive information disclosure could include internal configuration data, credentials, or other confidential information that attackers could use to escalate privileges or move laterally within the network. This risk is heightened in sectors with strict data protection requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government institutions. The exposure of sensitive data could lead to compliance violations under GDPR, resulting in legal and financial penalties. Additionally, the ability to access internal resources via SSRF could undermine trust in the organization's security posture and potentially facilitate more severe attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities. Since the vulnerability requires some level of privilege on the system, insider threats or attackers who have already compromised lower-privileged accounts could exploit this to deepen their access.

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

security-advisory.acronis.com/advisories/SEC-8514 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 02:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats