CVE-2025-57055VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-57055: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% 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:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 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 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

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should focus on restricting administrative access to trusted personnel only and enforcing strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 2. Network-level controls should be implemented to restrict outbound HTTP requests from the CMS server to only necessary destinations, using egress filtering and firewall rules to prevent arbitrary external or internal requests. 3. Administrators should monitor logs for unusual or unexpected outbound requests originating from the CMS server, which may indicate exploitation attempts. 4. Until an official patch is released, consider disabling the custom module installation feature or restricting its use to prevent exploitation. 5. Conduct a thorough review of internal network services to ensure that sensitive endpoints are not unnecessarily exposed or accessible from the CMS server. 6. Once available, promptly apply security patches or updates from WonderCMS addressing this vulnerability. 7. Educate administrators about the risks of SSRF and the importance of validating URLs and inputs within administrative interfaces.

Description

WonderCMS 3.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in the custom module installation functionality. An authenticated administrator can supply a malicious URL via the pluginThemeUrl POST parameter. The server fetches the provided URL using curl_exec() without sufficient validation, allowing the attacker to force internal or external HTTP requests.

Impact

For European organizations using WonderCMS 3.5.0, this SSRF vulnerability poses a considerable risk, especially for those with internal services or sensitive infrastructure behind firewalls. An attacker who compromises or already has administrative access to the CMS can exploit this flaw to perform unauthorized internal network reconnaissance, access metadata services, or reach internal APIs and databases that are not exposed externally. This can lead to data leakage, unauthorized access to internal systems, or facilitate lateral movement within the network. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure are particularly at risk due to the sensitivity of their internal networks and data. Additionally, since the vulnerability requires administrative authentication, the risk is heightened if credential compromise or insider threats exist. The potential for SSRF to bypass network segmentation and firewall rules can undermine perimeter defenses, making this vulnerability a serious concern for European entities that rely on WonderCMS for web content management.

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

github.com/thawphone/CVE-2025-57055 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Sep 2025, 14:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats