CVE-2025-61784
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 · uneditedLLaMA-Factory is a tuning library for large language models. Prior to version 0.9.4, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the chat API allows any authenticated user to force the server to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal and external networks. This can lead to the exposure of sensitive internal services, reconnaissance of the internal network, or interaction with third-party services. The same mechanism also allows for a Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability, enabling users to read arbitrary files from the server's filesystem. The vulnerability exists in the `_process_request` function within `src/llamafactory/api/chat.py.` This function is responsible for processing incoming multimodal content, including images, videos, and audio provided via URLs. The function checks if the provided URL is a base64 data URI or a local file path (`os.path.isfile`). If neither is true, it falls back to treating the URL as a web URI and makes a direct HTTP GET request using `requests.get(url, stream=True).raw` without any validation or sanitization of the URL. Version 0.9.4 fixes the underlying issue.
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 analysisA file path is built from user input without being confined, so sequences like “../” let an attacker step outside the intended directory. That can expose configuration, credentials, or source code, and in the worst case lets an attacker write files where they shouldn't. A durable fix resolves and canonicalises the path, then rejects anything that escapes a known-safe base directory.
General guidance for the path traversal class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 0.9.4CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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.
dbcve · scoped0.9.4
LLaMA-Factory version 0.9.4
- 1. Ensure you have a backup of your current LLaMA-Factory installation and configuration.
- 2. Upgrade LLaMA-Factory to version 0.9.4 or later using your package manager (e.g., pip install llamafactory>=0.9.4).
- 3. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the installed version: `pip show llamafactory` or checking the version in the codebase.
- 4. Test that the chat API functions correctly with the new version.
- 5. If using a custom deployment, ensure the source code is updated to include commit 95b7188090a1018935c9dc072bfc97f24f1c96e9 or later.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-61784 — 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-2025-61784 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