dbcve.org
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)Weakness · CWE-918

CVE-2025-11674

MEDIUM · 6.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-10-13
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
74/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
SOOP-CLM developed by PiExtract has a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability, allowing privileged remote attackers to read server files or probe internal network information.

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 confidence

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in SOOP-CLM by PiExtract allows authenticated remote attackers to make the server perform arbitrary requests to internal resources, potentially enabling unauthorized file access or internal network reconnaissance.

MitigationImplement strict URL allowlisting for all user-controlled URL inputs, validate that requested URLs resolve to expected domains/IPs, and apply network segmentation to restrict outbound access from the application server.

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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify SOOP-CLM installation
    Locate the PiExtract SOOP-CLM application on the system; check for its binary, service, or web application files
    Affected if SOOP-CLM by PiExtract is present
  2. Determine installed version
    Check the application's version information (typically via --version flag, about page, or version file in installation directory)
    Affected if Version is unknown or falls within the vulnerable range
  3. Verify URL input functionality is exposed
    Search the application for features that accept user-controlled URLs: URL import, URL-based extraction, HTTP client endpoints, or any feature that makes outbound requests based on user input
    Affected if URL input functionality is accessible to users
  4. Confirm authentication is configured
    Review the application's authentication settings to determine whether user accounts can be created and login is enforced
    Affected if Authentication is enabled (required for authenticated exploitation)

The environment is affected if SOOP-CLM is installed, the version is prior to the fix, and URL input functionality is available to authenticated users.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict URL allowlisting for all user-controlled URL inputs, validate that requested URLs resolve to expected domains/IPs, and apply network segmentation to restrict outbound access from the application server.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11674 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-11674 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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