VulnerabilityPublished 2 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-64427: IceWhaleTech ZimaOS · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects IceWhaleTech ZimaOSSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 1.5.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.5.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 2 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 ZimaOS and icewhaletech/ZimaOS to 1.5.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
IceWhaleTechZimaOS	Affected <1.5.0	Fixed in 1.5.0
GitHubicewhaletech/ZimaOS`pkg:github/icewhaletech/ZimaOS`Other threats	Affected <1.5.0	Fixed in 1.5.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-64427, organizations should first restrict and monitor local user access to ZimaOS systems, ensuring that only trusted users have authenticated local accounts. Implement strict access controls and auditing to detect unusual request patterns targeting internal IP ranges. Network segmentation should be enforced to limit the exposure of sensitive internal HTTP/HTTPS services, potentially by using firewall rules or network policies that restrict access from ZimaOS devices to critical internal services. If you cannot patch yet, consider disabling or restricting features in ZimaOS that allow user-initiated URL requests or proxying to internal services. Employ application-layer filtering or proxy solutions that validate and sanitize URLs before processing. Regularly review and update authentication mechanisms to prevent unauthorized local access. Additionally, monitor logs for signs of SSRF exploitation attempts, such as requests to localhost or private IP addresses originating from authenticated users. Engage with IceWhaleTech for updates on patches and apply them promptly once available. Finally, consider isolating ZimaOS devices in less sensitive network segments if feasible.

Description

ZimaOS is a fork of CasaOS, an operating system for Zima devices and x86-64 systems with UEFI. In version 1.5.0 and prior, due to insufficient validation or restriction of target URLs, an authenticated local user can craft requests that target internal IP addresses (e.g., 127.0.0.1, localhost, or private network ranges). This allows the attacker to interact with internal HTTP/HTTPS services that are not intended to be exposed externally or to local users. No known patch is publicly available.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-64427 is the potential exposure of sensitive internal services and data within networks running ZimaOS. Attackers with authenticated local access can leverage the SSRF flaw to bypass network segmentation and access internal HTTP/HTTPS services that are otherwise inaccessible. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, such as configuration data, credentials, or internal APIs. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise data integrity or system availability, the information gained could facilitate further attacks, including privilege escalation or lateral movement within the network. Organizations deploying ZimaOS in environments with sensitive internal services are at risk of internal reconnaissance and data leakage. The requirement for local authentication limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in multi-user or shared environments. The lack of a public patch increases exposure duration, emphasizing the need for immediate mitigation. The vulnerability could be particularly impactful in environments where ZimaOS devices are used as gateways or control points within critical infrastructure or enterprise networks.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (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.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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.
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).
CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/IceWhaleTech/ZimaOS/security/advisories/GHSA-m8hj-7xg5-p375 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Mar 2026, 17:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918, CWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats