VulnerabilityPublished 14 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-54560: Desktop Alert PingAlert · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.8 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 16:39 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.8Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: 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 14 Nov 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

Restrict network access to the Desktop Alert PingAlert Application Server to trusted administrators and systems only, using firewalls and access control lists (ACLs).
Implement strict network segmentation to isolate the application server from sensitive internal infrastructure, minimizing the attack surface for SSRF exploitation.
Monitor and log all outgoing requests from the application server to detect unusual or unauthorized internal probing activities.
Enforce the principle of least privilege by limiting user and service account permissions to the minimum necessary, reducing the risk of high privilege exploitation.
Engage with the vendor for timely patch releases and apply updates as soon as they become available.
Conduct internal security assessments and penetration tests focusing on SSRF vectors to identify and remediate similar weaknesses.
Educate administrators and security teams about SSRF risks and detection techniques specific to Desktop Alert PingAlert environments.

Description

A Server-side Request Forgery vulnerability was found in the Application Server of Desktop Alert PingAlert version 6.1.0.11 to 6.1.1.2 which allows Probing of internal infrastructure.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-54560 is the potential exposure of internal network details through SSRF-based reconnaissance. This can undermine confidentiality by revealing internal IP addresses, services, and configurations that are not intended to be externally accessible. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise data integrity or availability, the information gained can facilitate lateral movement or targeted attacks by adversaries. Organizations in sectors such as energy, finance, healthcare, and government, which rely on Desktop Alert PingAlert for critical communications, may face increased risk if internal infrastructure is exposed. The requirement for high privileges limits exploitation to insiders or attackers who have already compromised a user account with elevated rights, reducing the likelihood of widespread exploitation but increasing the risk from insider threats or advanced persistent threats (APTs). The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for vigilance.

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 21 Nov 2025, 19:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats