CVE-2025-0539
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIn affected Microsoft Windows versions of Octopus Deploy, the server can be coerced into sending server-side requests that contain authentication material allowing a suitably positioned attacker to compromise the account running Octopus Server and potentially the host infrastructure itself.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Microsoft Windows versions of Octopus Deploy. An attacker can coerce the Octopus Server into sending HTTP requests to internal or external systems, and these requests include authentication credentials. This allows the attacker to steal the service account's authentication material and potentially pivot to compromise the host infrastructure.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 2.6.0, < 2024.3.13071>= 2024.4.401, < 2024.4.7065CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed Octopus Server versionOpen the Octopus Web UI, navigate to Configuration > About, or run 'Octopus.Server.exe version' from the installation directoryAffected if The displayed version falls within < 2024.3.13071 (for 2024.3.x builds) or >= 2024.4.401 and < 2024.4.7065 (for 2024.4.x builds), or is >= 2.6.0 and < 2024.3.13071 for older branches
-
Verify if Workers feature is enabledIn the Octopus Web UI, go to Infrastructure > Workers. Check if any workers (either built-in or external) are configuredAffected if Workers are configured and the server version is vulnerable, as workers can be leveraged to initiate outbound HTTP requests
-
Check configured External FeedsIn the Octopus Web UI, navigate to Library > External Feeds. Review all configured package feeds (NuGet, Docker, GitHub, etc.)Affected if External feeds are configured and the server version is vulnerable, as feeds require outbound HTTP/HTTPS connections to fetch packages
-
Inspect HTTP proxy settingsIn the Octopus Web UI, go to Configuration > System Settings > HTTP Proxy. Examine if a proxy is configured for outbound requestsAffected if A proxy or any outbound HTTP configuration exists on a vulnerable version, as this confirms the server has the capability to make outbound HTTP requests that could be abused
You are affected if your Octopus Server version is 2.6.0 or higher but below 2024.3.13071, or is 2024.4.401 or higher but below 2024.4.7065, and the server has network connectivity enabled for workers, external feeds, or any outbound HTTP features.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped2024.3.130712024.4.7065
Apply vendor patches for Octopus Deploy when available, and implement network segmentation to restrict outbound requests from the Octopus Server to only trusted internal resources.
2024.3.13071 (or 2024.4.7065, or latest in your current branch)
- Back up the Octopus Server database and configuration files before upgrading
- Download the fixed version of Octopus Server (2024.3.13071 for the 2024.3.x branch or 2024.4.7065 for the 2024.4.x branch, or the latest available release in your branch) from the official Octopus Downloads page
- Review the Octopus Server upgrade documentation for your deployment type (Windows Installer, Docker, or manual upgrade)
- Execute the upgrade following the standard upgrade procedure for your deployment method
- After upgrade, verify the server starts successfully and all Tentacles can reconnect
- Confirm the Octopus Server version is correct post-upgrade by checking the UI or API
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0539 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-0539 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data