CVE-2025-62207VulnerabilityPublished 20 Nov 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-62207: Microsoft Azure Monitor Control Service · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Microsoft Azure Monitor Control ServiceSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 55% 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:C/C:H/I:N/A:N/E:U/RL:O/RC:C

Base metrics

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

Temporal metrics

Exploit Code Maturity: Unproven
Remediation Level: Official Fix
Report Confidence: Confirmed

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Exploit Code Maturity: Unproven: No exploit code is available, or an exploit is theoretical.
Remediation Level: Official Fix: A complete vendor solution is available. Either the vendor has issued an official patch, or an upgrade is available.
Report Confidence: Confirmed: Detailed reports exist, or functional reproduction is possible (functional exploits may provide this). Source code is available to independently verify the assertions of the research, or the author or vendor of the affected code has confirmed the presence of the vulnerability.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Nov 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

Until an official patch is released by Microsoft, organizations should implement several specific mitigations to reduce risk. First, restrict network egress rules for Azure Monitor Control Service components to limit outbound requests only to trusted endpoints, minimizing the attack surface for SSRF exploitation. Employ strict network segmentation and firewall policies to prevent Azure Monitor from accessing sensitive internal resources unnecessarily. Enable and closely monitor logging and alerting for unusual outbound requests or access patterns originating from Azure Monitor services. Use Azure Policy and role-based access controls (RBAC) to limit permissions and reduce the potential impact of compromised components. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or proxy solutions that can detect and block SSRF attack patterns. Stay informed on Microsoft advisories and apply patches immediately once available. Conduct internal security assessments and penetration tests focusing on SSRF vectors within Azure environments to identify and remediate related weaknesses proactively.

Description

Azure Monitor Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-62207 is significant for organizations using Microsoft Azure Monitor, as it compromises the confidentiality of sensitive data within cloud environments. Attackers exploiting this SSRF vulnerability can access internal Azure resources that are normally inaccessible externally, potentially exposing sensitive configuration data, credentials, or internal APIs. This can lead to further lateral movement, privilege escalation, or data exfiltration within the cloud infrastructure. Since Azure Monitor is widely used for monitoring and diagnostics, a successful attack could undermine trust in telemetry data and cloud security posture. The vulnerability does not directly affect integrity or availability, but the confidentiality breach alone can have severe consequences, including compliance violations, intellectual property theft, and disruption of cloud operations through indirect means. The ease of exploitation and lack of required authentication increase the risk of widespread attacks once exploit code becomes available. Organizations with critical workloads on Azure, especially those in regulated industries or with sensitive data, face heightened risk.

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

msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-62207 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 06:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats