CVE-2025-8020
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 · uneditedAll versions of the package private-ip are vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) where an attacker can provide an IP or hostname that resolves to a multicast IP address (224.0.0.0/4) which is not included as part of the private IP ranges in the package's source code.
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 confidenceThe private-ip package fails to validate IP addresses against multicast ranges (224.0.0.0/4), allowing an attacker to supply an IP or hostname that resolves to a multicast address. Since multicast IPs are not included in the package's private IP range validation logic, attackers can potentially make the server make requests to internal services or bypass network restrictions.
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
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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 private-ip package usageSearch your codebase for imports of the 'private-ip' package, or run 'npm list private-ip' / 'pip show private-ip' / equivalent to list the package in dependenciesAffected if The private-ip package is present in your project dependencies
-
Determine installed package versionRun 'npm list private-ip --depth=0' or check your package-lock.json / requirements.txt for the private-ip version numberAffected if A version is installed that lacks multicast validation (the vulnerability exists in versions without proper 224.0.0.0/4 range checks)
-
Inspect input handling before private-ip callsSearch your codebase for calls to functions like isPrivateIP, isIP, or checkIp and trace what input sources feed into them (query parameters, headers, config files, DNS resolution results)Affected if User-controllable or DNS-resolved input reaches private-ip without prior multicast filtering
-
Verify multicast IP filtering is absentSearch code for any validation logic that checks if an IP falls within 224.0.0.0/4 or uses IP library functions to exclude multicast ranges before calling private-ipAffected if No code exists to filter out multicast addresses before passing to the package
-
Test with multicast address inputIf possible, provide a hostname that resolves to a multicast address (e.g., 224.0.0.1) or directly pass a multicast IP to the private-ip function and observe if it is incorrectly treated as privateAffected if The package returns true for isPrivate or does not reject multicast addresses, confirming the vulnerability is present
You are affected if your application uses the private-ip package and processes IP addresses or hostnames that could resolve to multicast addresses without filtering them out first.
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 input validation to filter out multicast IP addresses (224.0.0.0/4) before processing, and await an updated package version from the maintainer that includes proper multicast range checking.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-8020 — 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-2025-8020 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