CVE-2025-70042
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 issue pertaining to CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery was discovered in oslabs-beta ThermaKube master.
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 confidenceA Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CWE-918) in oslabs-beta ThermaKube master allows attackers to make the server perform arbitrary requests to internal or external resources.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 ThermaKube installationCheck if the ThermaKube package or container is present in your environment by searching for 'thermakube' in running processes, installed packages, or container listings (e.g., docker ps, kubectl get pods)Affected if ThermaKube is installed and running as any version is affected
-
Identify the ThermaKube master componentLocate the ThermaKube master service by examining running services, Kubernetes deployments, or Docker containers labeled as 'master' or the main API/controller componentAffected if The master component is deployed and running
-
Check if master component is network-exposedReview network configurations, service definitions, or ingress rules to determine if the ThermaKube master API or controller port is accessible from untrusted networksAffected if The master component has a network listener exposed to non-internal networks or the internet
-
Inspect for URL/request handling featuresReview ThermaKube configuration files, environment variables, or API endpoints that accept user-supplied URLs or hostnames as input, particularly in features related to external resource fetching, webhooks, or integrationsAffected if The component accepts URLs or hostnames in request parameters without strict allowlist validation
-
Review access logs for suspicious requestsExamine ThermaKube master component logs for incoming requests to endpoints that accept URLs, looking for patterns like requests to internal IP addresses (127.0.0.1, 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x), internal hostnames, or cloud metadata endpointsAffected if Logs show requests to internal resources or non-external URLs that were not initiated by legitimate internal services
You are affected if ThermaKube is running and its master component accepts URL or hostname inputs that can be manipulated to make the server fetch arbitrary internal or external resources.
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 URLs/hostnames and disable unnecessary request-following capabilities in the affected ThermaKube component.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-70042 — 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-2025-70042 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