VulnerabilityPublished 3 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-56551: DirectAdmin · Use of HTTP Request With Sensitive Query String

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% 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:U/C:L/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 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

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. These include restricting access to the DirectAdmin interface by IP whitelisting or VPN-only access to reduce exposure. Implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious GET requests that attempt to manipulate page layout parameters can help prevent exploitation. Monitoring web server logs for unusual GET requests targeting the login page is critical for early detection. Organizations should also educate users and administrators about phishing risks and encourage verification of login page authenticity. If feasible, temporarily disabling or restricting the DirectAdmin login interface until a patch is available can reduce risk. Regular backups and incident response plans should be reviewed and updated. Once a patch or official fix is released, prompt application is essential. Additionally, organizations should consider multi-factor authentication (MFA) for DirectAdmin access to mitigate the impact of credential compromise.

Description

An issue in DirectAdmin v1.680 allows unauthorized attackers to manipulate the page layout and replace the legitimate login interface with arbitrary attacker-controlled content via supplying a crafted GET request.

Impact

For European organizations using DirectAdmin v1.680, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of user credentials and administrative access. By manipulating the login interface, attackers can perform credential harvesting through phishing, leading to unauthorized access to hosting environments and potentially to customer data or hosted applications. This can result in data breaches, service disruptions, and reputational damage. Since DirectAdmin is often used by web hosting providers and enterprises managing multiple websites, exploitation could lead to widespread compromise of hosted services. The attack does not require authentication, increasing the attack surface and ease of exploitation. Additionally, the ability to inject arbitrary content could be leveraged to deliver malware or redirect users to malicious sites, amplifying the threat. For European organizations, this could also have regulatory implications under GDPR if personal data is compromised. The absence of patches means organizations must act quickly to mitigate risk. The impact on availability is indirect but possible if attackers leverage access gained through credential theft to disrupt services.

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 3 Oct 2025, 17:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-598

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats