VulnerabilityPublished 11 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59055: instantsoft icms2 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects instantsoft icms2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% 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:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: 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 11 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 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 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
instantsoft icms2	Affected <=2.17.3	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Restrict access to the installer functionality: Ensure that the installer or setup pages are disabled or inaccessible on production systems after deployment. 2. Enforce strict authentication and authorization controls: Limit access to trusted administrators only, and implement strong credential policies including multi-factor authentication to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 3. Network segmentation and firewall rules: Configure internal firewalls to restrict outbound HTTP/HTTPS requests from the CMS server to only necessary external endpoints, preventing arbitrary requests to internal services. 4. Monitor and log HTTP requests originating from the CMS server, especially those triggered via the 'package' parameter, to detect anomalous or excessive request patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 5. Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious SSRF payloads targeting the installer functionality. 6. Regularly audit and update CMS components and monitor vendor communications for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability. 7. If feasible, temporarily disable or isolate the installer module until a patch is available. 8. Conduct internal penetration testing focusing on SSRF vectors to identify and remediate similar weaknesses. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on limiting the attack surface, monitoring for exploitation attempts, and controlling network flows specific to this vulnerability context.

Description

InstantCMS is a free and open source content management system. A blind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in InstantCMS up to and including 2.17.3 allows authenticated remote attackers to make nay HTTP/HTTPS request via the package parameter. It is possible to make any HTTP/HTTPS request to any website in installer functionality. Due to such vulnerability it is possible to for example scan local network, call local services and its functions, conduct a DoS attack, and/or disclose a server's real IP if it's behind a reverse proxy. It is also possible to exhaust server resources by sending plethora of such requests. As of time of publication, no patched releases are available.

Impact

For European organizations using InstantCMS icms2 version 2.17.3 or earlier, this SSRF vulnerability could lead to significant security risks. Attackers with valid credentials could leverage this flaw to perform reconnaissance on internal networks, potentially discovering sensitive services and systems that are not exposed externally. This could facilitate lateral movement within the network or enable further exploitation of internal applications. The ability to cause DoS conditions by resource exhaustion could disrupt business operations, impacting availability of web services. Disclosure of the server's real IP address behind reverse proxies could undermine network security postures and expose infrastructure to targeted attacks. Given the widespread use of CMS platforms in European public and private sectors, including government portals, educational institutions, and SMEs, the vulnerability could affect critical services if not mitigated. Moreover, the requirement for authentication limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with weak credential management or insider threats. The lack of an available patch increases the urgency for organizations to implement compensating controls. Overall, the vulnerability could compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability of affected systems, potentially leading to data breaches, service interruptions, and reputational damage.

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 11 Sep 2025, 18:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats