CVE-2025-8527VulnerabilityPublished 4 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-8527: Exrick xboot · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects Exrick xbootSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 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.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
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: 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 Vulnerable System 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 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 4 Aug 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Exrick xboot	Affected =3.3.0 =3.3.1 =3.3.2 =3.3.3 =3.3.4	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include restricting and validating all user-supplied URLs, especially the 'loginUrl' parameter, to allow only trusted domains or IP addresses. Implement strict allowlists and reject any requests to internal IP ranges or localhost addresses. 2. Employ network-level controls such as firewall rules or web application firewalls (WAF) to detect and block suspicious SSRF patterns or requests targeting internal services. 3. Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests initiated by the application, focusing on requests to internal or unexpected endpoints. 4. If possible, isolate the vulnerable component or disable the affected Swagger functionality until a patch is available. 5. Engage with the vendor or community to obtain official patches or updates addressing the vulnerability and apply them promptly once released. 6. Conduct internal security assessments and penetration testing to identify any exploitation attempts and verify the effectiveness of mitigations. 7. Educate development teams on secure coding practices to prevent SSRF and similar vulnerabilities in future releases.

Description

A vulnerability was found in Exrick xboot up to 3.3.4. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file xboot-fast/src/main/java/cn/exrick/xboot/modules/base/controller/common/SecurityController.java of the component Swagger. The manipulation of the argument loginUrl leads to server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using Exrick xboot versions 3.3.0 through 3.3.4, this SSRF vulnerability poses a significant risk to internal network security. Exploitation could allow attackers to bypass perimeter defenses and access internal services, potentially leading to data leakage, unauthorized access to sensitive systems, or pivoting to more critical infrastructure. Organizations in sectors with high regulatory requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government may face compliance violations if internal data is exposed or systems are compromised. The medium CVSS score reflects moderate but non-negligible risk, especially since SSRF can be a stepping stone to more severe attacks. The vulnerability's exploitation could disrupt service availability if internal resources are overwhelmed or manipulated. Additionally, the lack of authentication requirement lowers the barrier for attackers, increasing the threat surface. European organizations with internet-facing applications using the affected xboot versions should consider this vulnerability a priority for risk assessment and mitigation to prevent potential breaches and maintain trust with customers and stakeholders.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Aug 2025, 01:06 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats