VulnerabilityPublished 1 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-9799: Langfuse · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects LangfuseSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.3Low

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.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/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: High
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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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 1 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 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
Langfuse	Affected =3.0 =3.1 =3.2 =3.3 =3.4 =3.5 =3.6 =3.7 =3.8 =3.9 =3.10 =3.11 =3.12 =3.13 =3.14 =3.15 =3.16 =3.17 =3.18 =3.19 =3.20 =3.21 =3.22 =3.23 =3.24 =3.25 =3.26 =3.27 =3.28 =3.29 =3.30 =3.31 =3.32 =3.33 =3.34 =3.35 =3.36 =3.37 =3.38 =3.39 =3.40 =3.41 =3.42 =3.43 =3.44 =3.45 =3.46 =3.47 =3.48 =3.49 =3.50 =3.51 =3.52 =3.53 =3.54 =3.55 =3.56 =3.57 =3.58 =3.59 =3.60 =3.61 =3.62 =3.63 =3.64 =3.65 =3.66 =3.67 =3.68 =3.69 =3.70 =3.71 =3.72 =3.73 =3.74 =3.75 =3.76 =3.77 =3.78 =3.79 =3.80 =3.81 =3.82 =3.83 =3.84 =3.85 =3.86 =3.87 =3.88.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include restricting outbound network access from Langfuse servers to only trusted destinations using firewall rules or network segmentation to limit the potential impact of SSRF exploitation. 2. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all user-controlled inputs processed by the promptChangeEventSourcing function or related webhook handlers to prevent malicious payloads. 3. Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests originating from Langfuse servers that could indicate attempted exploitation. 4. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block SSRF attack patterns targeting the vulnerable endpoints. 5. Coordinate with Langfuse vendors or maintainers to obtain and apply patches as soon as they become available. 6. Conduct security reviews and penetration testing focused on SSRF vectors within Langfuse integrations. 7. Educate development and security teams about SSRF risks and secure coding practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities in future releases.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Langfuse up to 3.88.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function promptChangeEventSourcing of the file web/src/features/prompts/server/routers/promptRouter.ts of the component Webhook Handler. Performing manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Impact

For European organizations using Langfuse, this SSRF vulnerability could allow attackers to leverage the affected server to send unauthorized requests to internal or external systems. Potential impacts include unauthorized access to internal services, data leakage, or use of the server as a proxy to bypass network restrictions. However, due to the high complexity and difficulty of exploitation, as well as the low CVSS score, the immediate risk is limited. Organizations with sensitive internal services accessible only from the Langfuse server could face increased risk if attackers successfully exploit this flaw. Additionally, if Langfuse is integrated into critical workflows or handles sensitive data, even limited SSRF exploitation could lead to information disclosure or indirect compromise. The public availability of exploit code increases the urgency for European organizations to assess and mitigate this vulnerability, especially those in sectors with stringent data protection requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…