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

CVE-2025-40595

HIGH · 7.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-05-14
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
81/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges 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
A Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability has been identified in the SMA1000 Appliance Work Place interface. By using an encoded URL, a remote unauthenticated attacker could potentially cause the appliance to make requests to unintended location.

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

This is a Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the SMA1000 Appliance Work Place interface. A remote unauthenticated attacker can craft encoded URLs to trick the appliance into making requests to unintended locations, potentially accessing internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or internal network resources.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and URL allowlisting on the Work Place interface to sanitize and restrict URL parameters. Additionally, block requests to internal IP ranges, private networks, and cloud metadata endpoints.

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
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/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 checks

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

  1. Identify SMA1000 appliance and version
    Access the appliance admin console or check system information page for the firmware version. Common paths: /cgi-bin/login?diag=INFO or check the dashboard for the SMA100 model and firmware version.
    Affected if The device is a SonicWall SMA100 series appliance and the firmware version falls within the affected but unpatched range.
  2. Verify Work Place interface is enabled
    Check the SMA1000 admin panel under 'Work Place' or 'Secure Mobile Access' settings. Confirm the Work Place feature is actively configured or accessible.
    Affected if The Work Place interface is enabled and accessible to unauthenticated or low-privilege users.
  3. Inspect access logs for suspicious URL patterns
    Review SMA1000 access logs (typically under /var/log/ or via the admin GUI log viewer) for encoded or abnormal URL requests to the Work Place endpoint. Look for patterns like encoded IP addresses, unusual domains, or internal IP ranges in URL parameters.
    Affected if Logs contain requests with encoded URLs pointing to internal IPs (10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x), cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254), or unexpected external domains.
  4. Check for unauthorized internal network connections
    Review connection logs or network flow data for outbound connections from the SMA1000 appliance initiated by Work Place requests to internal or private IP addresses that were not expected.
    Affected if The appliance has made outbound connections to internal network ranges or cloud metadata services as a result of Work Place interface requests.

A user is affected if they operate a SonicWall SMA1000 appliance with an unpatched firmware version and the Work Place interface is enabled and exposed, potentially evidenced by anomalous internal-destination connections in logs.

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 input validation and URL allowlisting on the Work Place interface to sanitize and restrict URL parameters. Additionally, block requests to internal IP ranges, private networks, and cloud metadata endpoints.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-40595 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-40595 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