CVE-2025-61784VulnerabilityPublished 7 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-61784: hiyouga LLaMA-Factory · Path Traversal

Affects hiyouga LLaMA-FactorySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.6 High : upgrade to 0.9.4 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.9.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 7 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 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

Upgrade hiyouga LLaMA-Factory to 0.9.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
hiyouga LLaMA-Factory	Affected <0.9.4	Fixed in 0.9.4

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all instances of LLaMA-Factory to version 0.9.4 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Until upgrades are complete, restrict access to the chat API to trusted users only and enforce strong authentication and authorization controls. Implement network-level segmentation and firewall rules to limit the server's ability to make outbound HTTP requests to internal services, reducing SSRF impact. Employ application-layer filtering or web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious URL patterns or unexpected requests. Conduct thorough audits of server file permissions to minimize sensitive file exposure in case of LFI exploitation. Monitor logs for unusual access patterns or unexpected file reads. Additionally, consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) solutions to detect and block exploitation attempts in real time. Educate developers and DevOps teams on secure coding practices, especially validating and sanitizing all user-supplied inputs that influence network requests or file access.

Description

LLaMA-Factory is a tuning library for large language models. Prior to version 0.9.4, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the chat API allows any authenticated user to force the server to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal and external networks. This can lead to the exposure of sensitive internal services, reconnaissance of the internal network, or interaction with third-party services. The same mechanism also allows for a Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability, enabling users to read arbitrary files from the server's filesystem. The vulnerability exists in the `_process_request` function within `src/llamafactory/api/chat.py.` This function is responsible for processing incoming multimodal content, including images, videos, and audio provided via URLs. The function checks if the provided URL is a base64 data URI or a local file path (`os.path.isfile`). If neither is true, it falls back to treating the URL as a web URI and makes a direct HTTP GET request using `requests.get(url, stream=True).raw` without any validation or sanitization of the URL. Version 0.9.4 fixes the underlying issue.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses significant risks, especially those deploying LLaMA-Factory in production environments for AI model tuning. The SSRF capability can be leveraged to access internal services that are otherwise protected by network segmentation or firewalls, potentially exposing sensitive internal APIs, databases, or management interfaces. This can lead to data leakage, unauthorized access, or pivoting within the network. The LFI aspect allows attackers to read arbitrary files on the server, risking exposure of credentials, configuration files, or proprietary data. Given the increasing adoption of AI tooling in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government across Europe, exploitation could lead to breaches of sensitive personal data protected under GDPR, causing regulatory and reputational damage. The requirement for authentication limits exposure but does not eliminate risk, especially if credentials are compromised or insider threats exist. The vulnerability also impacts service availability and integrity to a lesser extent, as attackers could disrupt operations or manipulate data by leveraging internal access gained through SSRF. Overall, the threat could facilitate advanced persistent threats and lateral movement within affected networks.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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 7 Oct 2025, 19:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22, CWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats