VulnerabilityPublished 3 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-55971: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Oct 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

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should first identify all TCL 65C655 Smart TVs running the affected firmware version within their networks. Network segmentation should be enforced to isolate smart TVs from critical internal systems and sensitive data repositories. Specifically, restrict the TVs' network access to only necessary external services and block access to internal management interfaces or localhost addresses via firewall rules or network access control lists. Disable or restrict UPnP services on these devices if possible, or configure the devices to reject unauthenticated SOAP requests on port 16398. Monitoring network traffic for unusual outbound requests originating from smart TVs can help detect exploitation attempts. Until an official patch is released, organizations should consider applying compensating controls such as network-level filtering, device hardening, and limiting physical and network access to the affected devices. Vendor engagement is recommended to obtain firmware updates or official guidance. Additionally, security teams should educate users about the risks of connecting smart devices to sensitive networks and implement strict device onboarding policies.

Description

TCL 65C655 Smart TV, running firmware version V8-R75PT01-LF1V269.001116 (Android TV, Kernel 5.4.242+), is vulnerable to a blind, unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability via the UPnP MediaRenderer service (AVTransport:1). The device accepts unauthenticated SetAVTransportURI SOAP requests over TCP/16398 and attempts to retrieve externally referenced URIs, including attacker-controlled payloads. The blind SSRF allows for sending requests on behalf of the TV, which can be leveraged to probe for other internal or external services accessible by the device (e.g., 127.0.0.1:16XXX, LAN services, or internet targets), potentially enabling additional exploit chains.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be substantial, especially in environments where TCL Smart TVs are deployed in corporate meeting rooms, public spaces, or even employee work areas connected to internal networks. The SSRF vulnerability can be leveraged by attackers to bypass perimeter defenses and access internal services that are otherwise not exposed externally. This could lead to reconnaissance of internal infrastructure, identification of vulnerable services, and potentially facilitate more severe attacks such as privilege escalation, data exfiltration, or lateral movement within the network. Given the ubiquity of smart devices in modern workplaces, this vulnerability increases the attack surface and could compromise confidentiality and integrity of sensitive information. Additionally, if exploited in environments with critical infrastructure or sensitive data, the availability of services could also be impacted indirectly through chained attacks. The unauthenticated nature of the vulnerability lowers the barrier for attackers, increasing the likelihood of exploitation in poorly segmented or monitored networks.

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 3 Oct 2025, 14:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats