CVE-2025-53473
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 (SSRF) vulnerability exists n multiple versions of Nimesa Backup and Recovery, If this vulnerability is exploited, unintended requests may be sent to internal servers.
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 confidenceSSRF vulnerability in Nimesa Backup and Recovery allows attackers to make the server send requests to internal infrastructure. This occurs when the application accepts user-supplied URLs without proper validation, enabling access to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or internal network resources.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Confirm Nimesa installation and versionLocate the Nimesa installation directory and check version files, or run 'nimesa --version' if CLI is availableAffected if Version is unpatched and cannot be determined to be after the fix date
-
Identify URL input acceptance pointsReview application features that accept URLs as user input, such as backup source URLs, restore destination URLs, external script URLs, or webhook URLsAffected if Any feature accepts user-supplied URLs without visible validation
-
Inspect URL input validation configurationCheck application configuration files and web application settings for URL validation logic, allowlists, or input sanitization settingsAffected if No URL validation or allowlist is configured for URL input fields
-
Verify network segmentationReview network firewall rules or application network policies to determine if outbound access to internal IP ranges (127.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) and cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254) is blockedAffected if Server can make outbound HTTP requests to internal networks without restriction
-
Check for SSRF protection featuresLook for WAF, API gateway, or application-level protections specifically designed to block SSRF attempts in proxy or HTTP request featuresAffected if No SSRF-specific protections are enabled in the deployment
A user is affected if Nimesa is running and any feature accepts user-supplied URLs without proper validation and network isolation.
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 allowlist validation and disable access to internal IP ranges (127.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) and cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254). Apply vendor patches when available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-53473 — 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-2025-53473 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