CVE-2025-52491VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jun 2025Updated 2 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-52491: Akamai CloudTest · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Akamai CloudTestSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 30 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 2026-10-25.

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
Akamai CloudTest	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch at this time, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. These include restricting network access for the CloudTest server to only trusted and necessary internal endpoints, using network segmentation and firewall rules to limit outbound requests from the CloudTest environment. Monitoring and logging outbound requests from CloudTest should be enhanced to detect anomalous or unexpected traffic patterns indicative of SSRF exploitation attempts. Organizations should also review and harden any input validation or URL handling mechanisms within CloudTest configurations to prevent injection of malicious URLs. Where possible, deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) that can detect SSRF patterns may provide additional protection. Finally, organizations should prepare to apply vendor patches promptly once released and consider temporary suspension or isolation of CloudTest usage if the risk is deemed unacceptable.

Description

Akamai CloudTest before 60 2025.06.09 (12989) allows SSRF.

Impact

For European organizations using Akamai CloudTest, this SSRF vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of their testing environments and potentially to internal network security. Since CloudTest servers often have access to internal services and APIs for testing purposes, an SSRF exploit could enable attackers to send unauthorized requests to internal endpoints, possibly leading to unauthorized actions or manipulation of internal services. This could undermine trust in testing results or be leveraged as a foothold for further internal reconnaissance. Although confidentiality and availability impacts are not directly indicated, the integrity compromise could affect critical development and deployment pipelines, delaying releases or causing flawed application assessments. Organizations in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure in Europe may face compliance risks if internal systems are manipulated or if testing environments are compromised. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements increases the risk of automated exploitation attempts once the vulnerability is publicly known.

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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Jun 2025, 20:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats