CVE-2025-36560
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 · uneditedServer-side request forgery vulnerability exists in a-blog cms multiple versions. If this vulnerability is exploited, a remote unauthenticated attacker may gain access to sensitive information by sending a specially crafted request.
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 confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in a-blog cms where an unauthenticated remote attacker can send specially crafted requests causing the server to make requests to attacker-controlled URLs. This can allow access to sensitive information such as internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or internal network resources that should not be exposed.
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>= 2.8.0, <= 2.8.85>= 2.9.0, <= 2.9.52>= 2.10.0, <= 2.10.63>= 2.11.0, <= 2.11.75>= 3.0.0, <= 3.0.47>= 3.1.0, <= 3.1.43CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if a-blog cms is runningInspect the HTTP response headers, HTML source, or check common paths such as / or /index.php for a-blog cms identifiers or brandingAffected if The application is identified as Appleple A Blog Cms
-
Locate the version numberCheck the admin dashboard, configuration files, or version information file typically found in the cms installation directoryAffected if The detected version falls within any of these ranges: 2.8.0-2.8.85, 2.9.0-2.9.52, 2.10.0-2.10.63, 2.11.0-2.11.75, 3.0.0-3.0.47, or 3.1.0-3.1.43
-
Identify URL-based request featuresReview application endpoints that accept URL parameters, especially in modules related to external content fetching, pingbacks, trackbacks, or media embeddingAffected if The application exposes any feature that accepts user-supplied URLs and makes server-side requests to those URLs
-
Test for SSRF accessibilitySubmit a test request with a controlled URL parameter pointing to a listener you control, observing if the server attempts to fetch the URLAffected if The application successfully makes outbound requests to arbitrary URLs provided in parameters without strict allowlist validation
You are affected if a-blog cms is running and its version falls within the affected ranges and URL-based request features are accessible without proper allowlist filtering.
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 · scopedImplement strict input validation and allowlist-based URL filtering for all user-supplied URL parameters to restrict outbound requests to trusted domains. Additionally, restrict server-side request capabilities to prevent access to internal network resources and metadata endpoints.
Upgrade to the latest version in your release line: 2.8.86+, 2.9.53+, 2.10.64+, or 2.11.76+ (or migrate to the most recent stable release)
- 1. Identify the currently installed a-blog cms version by checking the admin dashboard or version file
- 2. Based on your current version line, upgrade to the fixed release: If using 2.8.x series, upgrade to 2.8.86 or later; If using 2.9.x series, upgrade to 2.9.53 or later; If using 2.10.x series, upgrade to 2.10.64 or later; If using 2.11.x series, upgrade to 2.11.76 or later
- 3. Download the updated version from the official a-blog cms website (developer.a-blogcms.jp) or use the built-in update mechanism
- 4. Before applying the update, create a complete backup of the database and all files
- 5. Test the upgrade in a staging environment first to verify compatibility with custom themes or extensions
- 6. Apply the upgrade following the standard a-blog cms upgrade procedure
- 7. After upgrading, verify the fix by confirming the SSRF vulnerability is no longer exploitable
- 8. Review system logs for any signs of exploitation attempts prior to the patch
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36560 — 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-2025-36560 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