CVE-2025-60540
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 · uneditedkarakeep v0.26.0 to v0.7.0 was discovered to contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).
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 confidenceServer-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in karakeep versions v0.26.0 through v0.7.0 allows an attacker to induce the server to make arbitrary requests to internal or external resources. The vulnerability exists due to insufficient validation of user-supplied URLs within the application, potentially allowing attackers to access internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or internal network infrastructure.
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
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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.
-
Identify karakeep installationLocate the karakeep application on your system. Check common installation paths such as /opt/karakeep, /usr/local/karakeep, or within Docker containers. Look for the karakeep binary or service process.Affected if karakeep is installed on the system
-
Determine installed versionRun 'karakeep --version' or check the version file in the installation directory (often VERSION, version.txt, or the Docker image tag). Record the exact version number.Affected if version cannot be determined or is not documented
-
Compare version to affected rangeCompare your installed version against the affected range v0.26.0 through v0.7.0. Note: if versions use semantic versioning, v0.7.0 would typically be older than v0.26.0; treat both as potentially affected if your version falls between or equals either endpoint.Affected if installed version is v0.26.0, v0.7.0, or any version in between (or if v0.7.0 is actually newer than v0.26.0 in your case, any version from v0.7.0 up to v0.26.0)
-
Identify URL-handling functionalitySearch configuration files (karakeep.yaml, config.yml, .env) for features that accept URLs, such as webhook integrations, link previews, or external resource fetching. Check if any URL-related features are enabled in the application settings.Affected if URL-handling features are enabled and configurable by users
-
Inspect network configurationReview outbound network rules and proxy settings. Check if the application has access to internal networks, cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254), or internal services that should not be exposed.Affected if the server has outbound network access to internal resources or cloud metadata services
You are affected if karakeep is installed with a version between v0.26.0 and v0.7.0 (inclusive) and URL-handling features are enabled, allowing users to supply URLs that the server will fetch.
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 dataUpgrade karakeep to a version beyond v0.7.0 that contains the security patch. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement strict URL allowlist validation and network segmentation to restrict outgoing connections from the application server.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation5.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-60540 — 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-2025-60540 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