VulnerabilityPublished 6 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64327: MatiasDesuu ThinkDashboard · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects MatiasDesuu ThinkDashboardSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 0.6.8 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.6.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 6 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 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 github.com/matiasdesuu/ThinkDashboard to 0.6.8.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Gogithub.com/matiasdesuu/ThinkDashboard`pkg:golang/github.com/matiasdesuu/ThinkDashboard`Other threats	Affected <0.6.8	Fixed in 0.6.8

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade ThinkDashboard to version 0.6.8 or later immediately to apply the official patch that fixes the SSRF vulnerability.
If upgrading is not immediately possible, restrict access to the ThinkDashboard instance using network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure to trusted internal users only.
Implement web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious requests targeting the /api/ping endpoint or containing unusual URL parameters.
Monitor network traffic logs for unusual outbound requests originating from the ThinkDashboard server, especially to internal IP ranges or uncommon ports.
Conduct internal network scans and penetration tests to identify any exposed services that could be targeted following SSRF exploitation.
Educate administrators and users about the risks of exposing self-hosted dashboards to public networks without proper access controls.
Apply the principle of least privilege to the server running ThinkDashboard, limiting its network access to only necessary resources.
Regularly review and update security policies regarding self-hosted applications and their exposure.

Description

ThinkDashboard is a self-hosted bookmark dashboard built with Go and vanilla JavaScript. Versions 0.6.7 and below contain a Blind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability, in its `/api/ping?url= endpoint`. This allows an attacker to make arbitrary requests to internal or external hosts. This can include discovering ports open on the local machine, hosts on the local network, and ports open on the hosts on the internal network. This issue is fixed in version 0.6.8.

Impact

For European organizations, this SSRF vulnerability poses a risk primarily related to internal network reconnaissance and potential information disclosure. Attackers exploiting this flaw can map internal network topology, identify open ports, and discover services that may be vulnerable to further attacks. This is particularly concerning for organizations with sensitive internal infrastructure accessible only within private networks. While the vulnerability itself does not allow direct data modification or service disruption, it can serve as a stepping stone for lateral movement or targeted attacks against internal assets. Organizations using ThinkDashboard in environments with sensitive data or critical internal services should consider this a significant risk. The lack of authentication requirement increases the attack surface, especially if the dashboard is exposed to untrusted networks or the internet. The medium CVSS score reflects the moderate impact and ease of exploitation. Given the growing adoption of self-hosted tools in European SMEs and enterprises, the potential for exploitation exists, especially in sectors with complex internal networks such as finance, healthcare, and government.

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 6 Nov 2025, 21:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats