CVE-2025-2813
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 · uneditedAn unauthenticated remote attacker can cause a Denial of Service by sending a large number of requests to the http service on port 80.
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 confidenceAn unauthenticated remote attacker can exhaust server resources by sending a large volume of HTTP requests to the service on port 80, causing a Denial of Service condition. The vulnerability likely stems from insufficient request rate limiting or lack of connection throttling on the HTTP service.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Identify HTTP service on port 80Run 'netstat -tlnp | grep :80' or 'ss -tlnp | grep :80' to list processes listening on port 80Affected if Any HTTP service is exposed on port 80 without proper rate limiting configured
-
Check for rate limiting configurationInspect the HTTP service configuration files (e.g., nginx.conf, httpd.conf, app config) for directives like 'limit_req_zone', 'RateLimit', or similar rate limiting rulesAffected if No rate limiting directives are found or configured for the port 80 listener
-
Verify connection throttling settingsSearch config files for connection limit directives such as 'max_connections', 'KeepAliveTimeout', 'MaxClients', or firewall rate limit rules (e.g., iptables -L -v -n, ufw status)Affected if No connection throttling or request limits are defined for incoming HTTP connections
-
Test current request handling behaviorSend a burst of HTTP requests (e.g., using 'curl' in a loop or 'ab -n 1000 -c 100 http://localhost/') from a test client and observe server response times and resource usageAffected if Server becomes unresponsive, hangs, or returns errors under moderate request load
-
Review upstream network protectionCheck if a WAF, load balancer, or network firewall in front of the HTTP service has rate limiting enabled by reviewing its configuration or admin consoleAffected if No upstream rate limiting or throttling is configured at the network edge
Your environment is affected if an HTTP service runs on port 80 without rate limiting, connection throttling, or request queueing configured at the application or network layer.
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 rate limiting, connection throttling, and request queuing on the HTTP service or upstream network devices (WAF/load balancer) to cap the number of requests accepted from a single source within a time window.
- 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-2025-2813 — 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-2025-2813 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