KvrocksApplication · Apache
CVE-2025-25069
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 Cross-Protocol Scripting vulnerability is found in Apache Kvrocks. Since Kvrocks didn't detect if "Host:" or "POST" appears in RESP requests, a valid HTTP request can also be sent to Kvrocks as a valid RESP request and trigger some database operations, which can be dangerous when it is chained with SSRF. It is similiar to CVE-2016-10517 in Redis. This issue affects Apache Kvrocks: from the initial version to the latest version 2.11.0. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.11.1, which fixes the issue.
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 · high confidenceCross-Protocol Scripting vulnerability in Apache Kvrocks where the RESP request parser fails to detect HTTP-specific markers like 'Host:' or 'POST', allowing malicious HTTP requests to be processed as valid RESP commands and trigger database operations when chained with SSRF attacks.
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
KvrocksApplication
< 2.11.1CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Kvrocks versionRun 'kvrocks --version' or check the package manager for the installed version. Compare against the affected version range: < 2.11.1Affected if The installed version is lower than 2.11.1
-
Determine network exposure of Kvrocks serviceCheck the configuration file (usually kvrocks.conf) for 'bind' directive and port configuration. Use 'netstat -tlnp | grep kvrocks' or 'ss -tlnp | grep kvrocks' to see listening addresses and portsAffected if The service binds to 0.0.0.0 or an externally accessible IP address, making it reachable from untrusted networks
-
Verify if HTTP can reach the Kvrocks portTest with curl or nc: send an HTTP request (e.g., 'GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: test\r\n\r\n') to the Kvrocks port. A vulnerable server may respond or behave unexpectedly rather than rejecting the requestAffected if The Kvrocks port accepts and processes HTTP-formatted requests instead of rejecting them with a protocol error
-
Check for upstream proxy configurationsReview any reverse proxy (nginx, haproxy) or firewall rules that might forward HTTP traffic to the Kvrocks port. Examine proxy config files and routing rulesAffected if HTTP traffic can be routed to the Kvrocks port through proxy configurations or port forwarding
You are affected if Kvrocks version is below 2.11.1 AND the service is reachable via HTTP requests (directly or through proxy forwarding), as this allows cross-protocol scripting via SSRF attack chains.
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 · scoped2.11.1
Upgrade to Apache Kvrocks version 2.11.1 which contains the fix for proper RESP request validation.
2.11.1
- Stop the running Kvrocks service
- Backup the existing Kvrocks data and configuration files
- Download Apache Kvrocks version 2.11.1 from the official Apache Kvrocks releases (e.g., GitHub releases page or Apache distribution)
- Replace the existing Kvrocks binary with the version 2.11.1 binary
- Review and restore the configuration files if needed
- Start the Kvrocks service
- Verify the running version is 2.11.1 using 'kvrocks -v' or checking the server info
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Kvrocks
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25069 — 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-2025-25069 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