CVE-2025-10393
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 · uneditedA flaw has been found in miurla morphic up to 0.4.5. This impacts the function fetchHtml of the file /api/advanced-search of the component HTTP Status Code 3xx Handler. This manipulation causes server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.
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 confidenceServer-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in miurla morphic up to version 0.4.5. The fetchHtml function in the /api/advanced-search endpoint (HTTP Status Code 3xx Handler component) does not properly validate user-supplied URLs, allowing an attacker to make the server perform requests to arbitrary internal or external resources.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Identify miurla morphic installationLocate the application files or check the running service to confirm it is miurla morphic (the product name should appear in application metadata, package.json, or the running service identifier)Affected if The application is miurla morphic and no other product is running on this service
-
Determine installed versionCheck the application version identifier (such as package.json, a version file, or the application's /about endpoint) and compare it to the affected range of version 0.4.5 and belowAffected if The installed version is 0.4.5 or any earlier version (versions greater than 0.4.5 are not affected)
-
Verify the advanced-search endpoint existsCheck if the /api/advanced-search endpoint is accessible in the deployed application (attempt a request or review the application's route configuration)Affected if The /api/advanced-search endpoint is present and exposed
-
Check URL validation on fetchHtml functionExamine the fetchHtml function code in the application source (search for the function definition in the codebase) and inspect whether user-supplied URLs are validated against an allowlist or undergo strict validation before being used in HTTP requestsAffected if The fetchHtml function contains no URL validation logic or allows arbitrary URLs from user input without restriction
You are affected if you are running miurla morphic version 0.4.5 or earlier, the /api/advanced-search endpoint is accessible, and the fetchHtml function lacks proper URL validation.
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.
From vendor dataImplement strict URL allowlist validation in the fetchHtml function to restrict requests to trusted domains/IPs only, or upgrade to version >0.4.5 if a patched version is available. Additionally, restrict outbound network access from the server to prevent internal resource access.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-10393 — 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-2025-10393 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