CVE-2025-50125
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 CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists that could cause unauthenticated remote code execution when the server is accessed via the network with knowledge of hidden URLs and manipulation of host request header.
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 confidenceCWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability allowing unauthenticated remote code execution via manipulation of the Host request header combined with knowledge of hidden URLs. The attack is network-based and requires no authentication.
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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 the application processes Host headersReview application code, web server configuration, or proxy settings to determine if incoming HTTP Host request headers are read, trusted, or used in server-side operations such as URL fetching, redirects, or internal service calls.Affected if The application uses the Host header value in any server-side operation without validation.
-
Check for server-side request handling based on user inputExamine whether the application performs HTTP requests, DNS lookups, or makes backend connections triggered by client-supplied URLs, paths, or headers.Affected if The application makes outbound requests using values derived from the Host header or similar client-controlled input.
-
Audit for exposed hidden URLs or internal endpointsReview accessible URL paths, API endpoints, or administrative interfaces that could be reached if the Host header is manipulated to point to internal resources.Affected if Hidden, internal, or undocumented URLs are reachable when the Host header is set to an internal hostname or IP address.
-
Verify Host header validation is implementedInspect application code, WAF rules, or proxy configuration for explicit allow-list or validation logic that restricts acceptable Host header values to trusted domains.Affected if No validation or allow-list exists to restrict the Host header to expected values.
-
Test for SSRF via Host header manipulationSend a request with a modified Host header pointing to an internal resource (such as localhost, 127.0.0.1, or an internal IP) and observe whether the server makes a request to that target.Affected if The server successfully resolves or connects to the attacker-controlled Host value, indicating no protection.
Your environment is affected if your web application or service processes Host headers without strict validation and exposes internal or hidden URLs that can be triggered through SSRF.
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 validation of user-supplied URLs and Host headers, employ allow-lists for permitted domains/paths, and disable or sanitize dangerous header manipulations at the application or proxy level.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-50125 — 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-2025-50125 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