VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-50709: Use of HTTP Request With Sensitive Query String

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% 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 17 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

Given the absence of official patches, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. These include restricting access to the Perplexity AI GPT-4 service via network-level controls such as IP whitelisting or VPN access to limit exposure. Organizations should monitor and log all requests to the service, focusing on unusual GET parameter usage patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts. Employing web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious GET parameter manipulations can reduce risk. Additionally, organizations should engage with Perplexity AI to obtain updates on patches or mitigations and plan for prompt application once available. Reviewing and minimizing the amount of sensitive data processed or stored by the AI service can also reduce potential exposure. Finally, conducting internal audits and penetration tests focusing on this vulnerability vector can help identify and remediate related weaknesses.

Description

An issue in Perplexity AI GPT-4 allows a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information via a GET parameter

Impact

For European organizations using Perplexity AI GPT-4 services, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, potentially including proprietary data, user inputs, or internal system details. Such exposure could undermine confidentiality, lead to privacy violations under GDPR, and damage organizational reputation. If the leaked information includes personally identifiable information (PII) or business-sensitive data, it could result in regulatory penalties and loss of customer trust. Additionally, attackers could leverage the disclosed information to facilitate further attacks, such as social engineering or targeted intrusions. The impact is heightened for sectors with strict data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government entities. Since the vulnerability is remotely exploitable without authentication, the attack surface is broad, increasing the risk for European organizations relying on this AI platform for critical or sensitive operations.

CWE-598Use of HTTP Request With Sensitive Query String (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The web application uses an HTTP method to process a request, but the request includes sensitive information in the query string.
Implementation
When sending sensitive information, only include it in the request body or request headers instead of the query string. This may require avoiding use of GET requests.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Web Service Security (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V3.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
V13.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.4 (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 17 Sep 2025, 13:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-598

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats