VulnerabilityPublished 17 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59346: dragonflyoss dragonfly · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects dragonflyoss dragonflySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 2.1.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.1.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: Low
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 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 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

Upgrade dragonflyoss dragonfly to 2.1.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
dragonflyoss dragonfly	Affected <2.1.0	Fixed in 2.1.0

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize upgrading Dragonfly installations to version 2.1.0 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrades can be applied, organizations should implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict Dragonfly components' outbound HTTP requests to only trusted internal services. Additionally, deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or API gateways with URL validation can help detect and block malicious requests attempting to exploit this SSRF. Monitoring and logging outbound HTTP requests from Dragonfly peers can provide early detection of suspicious activity. Organizations should also review and harden the configuration of internal HTTP services to minimize sensitive data exposure. Finally, restricting access to the Manager API to authenticated and authorized users, even if not required by the vulnerability itself, can reduce the attack surface.

Description

Dragonfly is an open source P2P-based file distribution and image acceleration system. Versions prior to 2.1.0 contain a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that enables users to force DragonFly2’s components to make requests to internal services that are otherwise not accessible to them. The issue arises because the Manager API accepts a user-supplied URL when creating a Preheat job with weak validation, peers can trigger other peers to fetch an arbitrary URL through pieceManager.DownloadSource, and internal HTTP clients follow redirects, allowing a request to a malicious server to be redirected to internal services. This can be used to probe or access internal HTTP endpoints. The vulnerability is fixed in version 2.1.0.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing Dragonfly for P2P file distribution or image acceleration, this SSRF vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized internal network reconnaissance and potential information disclosure. Attackers could leverage this flaw to access internal HTTP endpoints that are not exposed externally, potentially revealing sensitive configuration data, internal APIs, or other protected services. While the vulnerability does not directly enable remote code execution or widespread system compromise, the ability to probe internal networks can facilitate further targeted attacks or lateral movement within an organization's infrastructure. Given the increasing adoption of containerized and microservices architectures in Europe, where internal service communication is common, this vulnerability could expose critical internal services if Dragonfly is deployed in such environments. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate risk, but the absence of required authentication and user interaction increases the likelihood of exploitation if the vulnerable Dragonfly instance is internet-facing or accessible by untrusted peers.

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 17 Sep 2025, 19:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats