CVE-2025-9269VulnerabilityPublished 9 Sep 2025Updated 29 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-9269: Lexmark CX, XC, CS, MS, MX, XM, et. al. · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Lexmark CX, XC, CS, MS, MX, XM, et. al.Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: Low
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent 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 Subsequent 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Sep 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Lexmark CX, XC, CS, MS, MX, XM, et. al.	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Network Segmentation: Isolate Lexmark devices on dedicated VLANs or network segments with strict access controls to limit their ability to reach sensitive internal resources. 2. Access Control Lists (ACLs): Implement ACLs on network devices to restrict outbound HTTP/HTTPS requests from Lexmark devices to only trusted destinations. 3. Monitor Network Traffic: Deploy network monitoring and intrusion detection systems to detect unusual outbound requests originating from Lexmark devices. 4. Firmware Updates: Regularly check Lexmark's official channels for firmware updates or security patches addressing this SSRF vulnerability and apply them promptly once available. 5. Disable Unnecessary Services: Where possible, disable or restrict the embedded web server functionality or remote management interfaces on Lexmark devices to reduce attack surface. 6. Incident Response Preparedness: Develop and test incident response plans that include scenarios involving compromised network devices such as printers. 7. Vendor Engagement: Engage with Lexmark support to obtain detailed vulnerability information and timelines for patch releases. 8. Internal Network Hardening: Harden internal services to require strong authentication and limit exposure even if accessed via SSRF, reducing the potential impact of exploitation.

Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability has been identified in the embedded web server in various Lexmark devices. This vulnerability can be leveraged by an attacker to force the device to send an arbitrary HTTP request to a third-party server. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can lead to internal network access / potential data disclosure from a device.

Impact

For European organizations, this SSRF vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized internal network access through compromised Lexmark devices. Many enterprises, public sector entities, and critical infrastructure operators in Europe deploy Lexmark multifunction printers extensively. Exploitation could allow attackers to bypass perimeter defenses and access internal services, potentially leading to data disclosure or facilitating lateral movement within networks. This is particularly concerning for organizations with sensitive data or regulatory requirements such as GDPR, where unauthorized data exposure can lead to compliance violations and financial penalties. The vulnerability could also be leveraged as a foothold for advanced persistent threat (APT) actors targeting European institutions. Since the attack requires no authentication or user interaction, it lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the threat level. However, the lack of known active exploits and the medium severity rating suggest that immediate catastrophic impact is less likely but should not be discounted. The internal network exposure risk is significant, especially in environments where network segmentation is weak or where Lexmark devices have elevated network privileges or access to sensitive internal systems.

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

lexmark.com/en_us/solutions/security/lexmark-security-advisories.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Sep 2025, 00:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats