CVE-2025-60898
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 · uneditedAn unauthenticated server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the Thumbnail via-uri endpoint of Halo CMS 2.21 allows a remote attacker to cause the server to issue HTTP requests to attacker-controlled URLs, including internal addresses. The endpoint performs a server-side GET to a user-supplied URI without adequate allow/blocklist validation and returns a 307 redirect that can disclose internal URLs in the Location 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 · high confidenceAn unauthenticated SSRF vulnerability exists in the Thumbnail via-uri endpoint of Halo CMS 2.21. The endpoint performs a server-side GET request to a user-supplied URI without adequate allow/blocklist validation and returns a 307 redirect that can disclose internal URLs in the Location header, allowing attackers to make the server issue requests to internal infrastructure or attacker-controlled URLs.
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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/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 Halo CMS installation and versionLocate the Halo CMS installation and check the version number (typically found in application metadata, package.json, or admin dashboard About section). Compare against the affected version 2.21.xAffected if Version is 2.21.x or if the version cannot be determined but the software is Halo CMS
-
Locate the thumbnail via-uri endpointIdentify if the /thumbnail/via-uri endpoint (or similar endpoint that handles URI-based thumbnail requests) exists in the application routing. Check routes configuration or API documentation.Affected if The endpoint exists and is routable in the application
-
Verify endpoint accessibilityAttempt to access the thumbnail via-uri endpoint without providing authentication credentials. Check if the server accepts requests without requiring login session or API key.Affected if Endpoint responds to unauthenticated requests (returns 200/307/400 instead of 401/403)
-
Inspect URI validation logicIf source code is accessible, examine the thumbnail via-uri handler code for allow/blocklist validation on the URI parameter. Look for checks on internal IPs, localhost, or metadata endpoints.Affected if No blocklist for internal/private IPs (127.0.0.1, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) or no allowlist validation is implemented
-
Test for SSRF via redirect disclosureSend a request to the endpoint with a user-controlled URI parameter pointing to an attacker-controlled server or internal service. Observe if the response includes a 307 redirect with the target URL in the Location header.Affected if The endpoint returns a 307 redirect exposing the target URI in the Location header, indicating the server performed the request and disclosed the URL
User is affected if running Halo CMS version 2.21.x with the thumbnail via-uri endpoint exposed and accessible without authentication, and the endpoint does not properly validate URIs before making server-side requests.
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 allowlist validation for URI inputs, block requests to internal/private IP ranges (127.0.0.1, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16, localhost, metadata endpoints), and consider adding authentication to the endpoint or disabling it if not required.
- 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-2025-60898 — 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-2025-60898 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