VulnerabilityPublished 26 Jan 2026Updated 3 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-9522: TP-Link Systems Omada Controller · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects TP-Link Systems Omada ControllerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium : upgrade to 6.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
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: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
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: 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 26 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade TP-Link Systems Omada Controller to 6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
TP-Link Systems Inc.Omada Controller	Affected <6.0	Fixed in 6.0

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-9522, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Restrict webhook configuration and usage strictly to trusted administrators and monitor changes to webhook settings to detect unauthorized modifications. 2) Enforce strong access controls and multi-factor authentication on the Omada Controller to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 3) Network segmentation should be applied to limit the Omada Controller's ability to reach sensitive internal services, minimizing the impact of SSRF exploitation. 4) Monitor network traffic originating from the Omada Controller for unusual or unexpected internal requests that could indicate SSRF attempts. 5) Regularly audit internal services for exposure and ensure that sensitive endpoints are not unnecessarily accessible from the controller's network segment. 6) Stay informed about vendor advisories and apply patches or updates promptly once available. 7) Consider deploying web application firewalls or internal request filtering mechanisms to detect and block SSRF patterns. 8) Conduct internal security awareness training to highlight the risks of privileged account compromise and SSRF exploitation. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the unique aspects of the Omada Controller environment and the SSRF attack vector.

Description

Blind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Omada Controllers through webhook functionality, enabling crafted requests to internal services, which may lead to enumeration of information.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-9522 can be significant in environments where the Omada Controller is used to manage critical network infrastructure. The SSRF vulnerability could allow an attacker with administrative access to the controller to probe internal services that are otherwise inaccessible externally, potentially exposing sensitive information about internal network architecture or services. This reconnaissance could facilitate subsequent attacks such as lateral movement, privilege escalation, or data exfiltration. Although the vulnerability itself does not directly compromise confidentiality or availability, it lowers the barrier for attackers to gain deeper insight into internal systems. Organizations in sectors with stringent data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face increased risk if internal services are exposed or poorly segmented. The requirement for high privileges reduces the risk from external attackers but raises concerns about insider threats or compromised administrator accounts. The absence of known exploits limits immediate risk but does not preclude future exploitation. The medium severity rating reflects these factors, emphasizing the need for vigilance and proactive mitigation.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Feb 2026, 08:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats