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

CVE-2025-6142

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-06-16
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
69/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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 vulnerability was found in Intera InHire up to 20250530. It has been declared as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. The manipulation of the argument 29chcotoo9 leads to server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

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

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Intera InHire allows remote attackers to manipulate the '29chcotoo9' parameter to make the server perform unauthorized requests to internal or external resources. The vulnerability exists in an unspecified functionality and requires no authentication. A public exploit is available.

MitigationImplement strict allowlist-based input validation for the vulnerable parameter and restrict server-side request capabilities to trusted endpoints only. Consider network segmentation to limit SSRF impact on internal services.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checks

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

  1. Confirm Intera InHire installation
    Search for Intera InHire application files in the web root directory or check running services for 'inhire' or 'Intera' processes
    Affected if Intera InHire software is found running in the environment
  2. Identify installed version
    Check version files, about pages, or API endpoints that reveal the Intera InHire version number; compare against any available release notes
    Affected if Installed version cannot be determined or falls within an unknown vulnerable range (no CVE-specific version data available)
  3. Verify network exposure
    Determine if the Intera InHire web interface is accessible from untrusted networks without authentication
    Affected if The application is exposed externally or to untrusted networks without requiring authentication
  4. Locate vulnerable parameter access
    Review application traffic logs or use a web proxy to inspect requests to endpoints that accept the '29chcotoo9' parameter; test suspected endpoints with benign SSRF payloads (such as requesting a controlled external endpoint)
    Affected if The application accepts and processes the '29chcotoo9' parameter without validation or restriction
  5. Check for exploitation indicators
    Review HTTP access logs for suspicious requests to internal IP addresses (127.0.0.1, 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x) or unusual external domains originating from the application server
    Affected if Logs show requests to internal resources or unexpected external domains that were not initiated by legitimate users or scheduled tasks

The environment is affected if Intera InHire is deployed, the application is network-accessible without authentication, and the '29chcotoo9' parameter is present and processable by the application.

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 allowlist-based input validation for the vulnerable parameter and restrict server-side request capabilities to trusted endpoints only. Consider network segmentation to limit SSRF impact on internal services.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
30.0 hours of engineering $5,280
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6142 — 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-2025-6142 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