CVE-2025-3192
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 · uneditedVersions of the package spatie/browsershot from 0.0.0 are vulnerable to Server-side Request Forgery (SSRF) in the setUrl() function due to a missing restriction on user input, enabling attackers to access localhost and list all of its directories.
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 confidenceThe spatie/browsershot package versions 0.0.0 and later contain an SSRF vulnerability in the setUrl() function. Due to missing input validation on the URL parameter, attackers can supply arbitrary URLs to access internal services, localhost resources, and list directory contents on internal systems.
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
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 if spatie/browsershot is installedCheck your project's composer.json for spatie/browsershot in the require section, or run 'composer show spatie/browsershot' to list the installed versionAffected if The package is present in the project dependencies at any version 0.0.0 or higher
-
Locate setUrl() usage in codebaseSearch your codebase for calls to setUrl() method, such as 'Browsershot::url()' or '$browsershot->setUrl()'Affected if The setUrl() method is called anywhere in the application code
-
Determine if URL input is user-controlledTrace the parameter passed to setUrl() - check if it originates from request parameters ($_GET, $_POST, request()->input(), etc.) or other external sourcesAffected if The URL parameter comes from user input, API requests, or any untrusted source without validation
-
Check for existing URL validation logicSearch for validation functions, allowlists, or sanitization code that processes URLs before they reach setUrl(), such as filter_var(), custom validation methods, or whitelist arraysAffected if No validation exists, or validation allows http://, file://, or internal hostnames (localhost, 127.0.0.1, 192.168.x.x, 10.x.x.x, etc.)
-
Verify network isolationReview server/network configuration to confirm whether the server running browsershot can initiate connections to internal resources or localhostAffected if The server has network access to internal services, local ports, or private IP ranges that should not be exposed
A user is affected if their application uses browsershot's setUrl() with URLs derived from untrusted input without validation or network restrictions.
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 validation in setUrl() to enforce allowed schemes (https only), use an allowlist of permitted domains, and explicitly block requests to localhost, 127.0.0.1, and private/internal IP ranges (RFC 1918 addresses).
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,848.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-3192 — 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-2025-3192 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