CVE-2025-9670VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-9670: mixmark-io turndown · ReDoS

Affects mixmark-io turndownSource 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: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:N/VI:N/VA:L/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: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 29 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 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
mixmark-io turndown	Affected =7.2.0 =7.2.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should first identify all instances of turndown usage within their software stack, including direct dependencies and transitive ones. Immediate action should be to upgrade turndown to a patched version once released by the vendor or maintainers. In the absence of an official patch, organizations can implement input validation and sanitization to limit or reject suspiciously complex HTML inputs that could trigger the inefficient regex. Rate limiting and web application firewalls (WAFs) should be configured to detect and block abnormal request patterns indicative of ReDoS attempts. Monitoring CPU and memory usage on affected services can help detect ongoing exploitation. Additionally, consider isolating or sandboxing the turndown processing component to minimize impact on critical systems. Security teams should also review logging to capture evidence of exploitation attempts and prepare incident response plans accordingly. Finally, communicate with development teams to raise awareness about safe usage patterns and encourage secure coding practices around user input processing.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in mixmark-io turndown up to 7.2.1. This affects an unknown function of the file src/commonmark-rules.js. Performing manipulation results in inefficient regular expression complexity. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability primarily concerns availability and service reliability. Applications relying on turndown for HTML to Markdown conversion—such as documentation platforms, CMSs, or developer tools—may become susceptible to denial of service attacks, leading to degraded user experience or downtime. This can affect both internal tools and customer-facing services. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or integrity, the resulting service disruption can have operational and reputational consequences. Organizations in sectors with high web service dependency, such as finance, e-commerce, media, and government, may face increased risk. Additionally, the public availability of an exploit increases the likelihood of opportunistic attacks, especially targeting publicly accessible endpoints that process user-generated content. Given the remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit, attackers can launch attacks at scale, potentially impacting cloud-hosted services and SaaS platforms widely used in Europe.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…