CVE-2025-8267VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-8267: ssrfcheck · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects ssrfcheckSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High : upgrade to 1.2.0 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/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: High
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
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: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable 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 28 Jul 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 ssrfcheck to 1.2.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmssrfcheck`pkg:npm/ssrfcheck`Other threats	Affected <1.2.0	Fixed in 1.2.0

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-2025-8267 effectively, European organizations should: 1) Immediately upgrade the ssrfcheck package to version 1.2.0 or later, where the denylist properly includes the multicast IP range 224.0.0.0/4. 2) Implement additional server-side validation layers that explicitly block requests to reserved IP ranges, including multicast, loopback, link-local, and private address spaces, beyond relying solely on ssrfcheck. 3) Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict server outbound requests to only necessary external endpoints, preventing SSRF from reaching internal multicast or sensitive network segments. 4) Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual outbound requests targeting multicast addresses or other reserved IP ranges, enabling early detection of attempted exploitation. 5) Conduct security testing and code reviews focusing on SSRF vectors, ensuring that any user-supplied URLs or IPs are sanitized and validated against comprehensive deny and allow lists. 6) Educate development and security teams about SSRF risks and the importance of defense-in-depth strategies to mitigate such vulnerabilities. These steps, combined, will reduce the attack surface and limit the potential impact of SSRF exploitation in affected environments.

Description

Versions of the package ssrfcheck before 1.2.0 are vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) due to an incomplete denylist of IP address ranges. Specifically, the package fails to classify the reserved IP address space 224.0.0.0/4 (Multicast) as invalid. This oversight allows attackers to craft requests targeting these multicast addresses.

Impact

For European organizations, this SSRF vulnerability poses a substantial risk, especially for those relying on the ssrfcheck package in their web applications, API gateways, or security validation layers. Exploitation could allow attackers to access internal network resources that are otherwise inaccessible externally, potentially leading to unauthorized data access, lateral movement within internal networks, or disruption of multicast-dependent services such as real-time communications or internal monitoring systems. Given the multicast address space involved, attackers might exploit this to interfere with or eavesdrop on internal multicast traffic, which could impact confidentiality and availability of critical internal services. Organizations in sectors with sensitive data or critical infrastructure—such as finance, healthcare, telecommunications, and government—are particularly at risk. The vulnerability's network-level exploitation without authentication or user interaction increases the likelihood of automated attacks or scanning campaigns targeting vulnerable deployments. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the high CVSS score and straightforward attack vector necessitate urgent remediation to avoid potential future exploitation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Jul 2025, 05:32 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats