CVE-2025-8529VulnerabilityPublished 4 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-8529: cloudfavorites favorites-web · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects cloudfavorites favorites-webSource 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: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% 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
cloudfavorites favorites-web	Affected =1.0 =1.1 =1.2 =1.3.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include implementing strict input validation and sanitization on the 'url' parameter in the getCollectLogoUrl function to ensure only trusted URLs are processed. 2. Employ allowlisting of domains or IP addresses that the server is permitted to contact, blocking all other outbound requests initiated by the application. 3. Restrict the server's network access using firewall rules or network segmentation to limit outbound requests to only necessary external services, preventing SSRF from reaching internal resources. 4. Monitor application logs and network traffic for unusual outbound requests that may indicate exploitation attempts. 5. If possible, upgrade to a patched version of favorites-web once available from the vendor. 6. As a temporary workaround, disable or restrict the functionality that uses getCollectLogoUrl if it is not critical to business operations. 7. Conduct a security review of similar functions handling user-supplied URLs to identify and remediate other potential SSRF vectors.

Description

A vulnerability classified as critical was found in cloudfavorites favorites-web up to 1.3.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function getCollectLogoUrl of the file app/src/main/java/com/favorites/web/CollectController.java. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations using cloudfavorites favorites-web versions up to 1.3.0, this SSRF vulnerability poses a moderate risk. Exploitation could allow attackers to access internal network resources that are otherwise protected by firewalls, potentially exposing sensitive internal services, databases, or administrative interfaces. This could lead to unauthorized data access or facilitate further compromise of internal systems. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection regulations, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face compliance risks if internal data is exposed. Additionally, SSRF can be a stepping stone for more complex attacks, including privilege escalation or persistent intrusion. The medium severity rating suggests that while the immediate impact may not be catastrophic, the vulnerability should be addressed promptly to prevent exploitation, especially given the public availability of exploit details.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…