CVE-2026-48285
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 · uneditedColdFusion versions 2025.9, 2023.20 and earlier are affected by a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could result in a Security feature bypass. An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to bypass security measures and gain unauthorized read access. Exploitation of this issue does not require user interaction. Scope is changed.
In the news
Third-party coverageSurfaced from public web coverage — external links open in a new tab.
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 confidenceColdFusion versions 2025.9, 2023.20 and earlier contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to cause the server to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or external resources, bypassing security controls and potentially gaining unauthorized read access to sensitive internal systems or data.
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 data= 2023= 2025CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/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 installed ColdFusion versionAccess the ColdFusion Administrator console (typically at /cfadmin or /CFIDE/administrator) and check the version displayed on the welcome page, or inspect the version file in the ColdFusion installation directory.Affected if The installed version is ColdFusion 2023 (any update) or ColdFusion 2025.9 or earlier.
-
Confirm HTTP request handling is enabledVerify that ColdFusion's HTTP request features (cfhttp, cfajax, or similar tags that allow outbound connections) are available and not explicitly disabled in the ColdFusion Administrator under Server Settings or Security settings.Affected if HTTP request functionality is enabled, which is the default configuration in ColdFusion.
-
Review outbound request loggingExamine ColdFusion log files (typically in the /logs directory) for any unexpected outbound HTTP requests from the ColdFusion server to internal IP ranges (10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x) or external destinations that were not initiated by legitimate applications.Affected if Outbound requests to internal infrastructure or unexpected external hosts appear in logs without corresponding legitimate application activity.
-
Check network configurationReview the ColdFusion server's network configuration to determine if outbound filtering, proxy restrictions, or network segmentation are in place to limit arbitrary HTTP/HTTPS requests.Affected if No outbound request filtering or network segmentation is configured, allowing unrestricted outbound connections from the ColdFusion server.
A user is affected if they are running ColdFusion 2023 or ColdFusion 2025.9 or earlier with HTTP request handling enabled and without network restrictions limiting outbound connections.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply the vendor-provided ColdFusion security update to version 2025.10 or later for ColdFusion 2025, and version 2023.21 or later for ColdFusion 2023. If immediate patching is not possible, implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict outbound connections from the ColdFusion server to only authorized endpoints.
ColdFusion 2023.21+ or ColdFusion 2025.10+ (latest available respective release)
- Identify the currently installed ColdFusion version (2023 or 2025)
- For ColdFusion 2023: Upgrade to version 2023.21 or later
- For ColdFusion 2025: Upgrade to version 2025.10 or later
- Download the update from the Adobe ColdFusion downloads page (helpx.adobe.com)
- Apply the update following Adobe's standard ColdFusion update installation procedure
- Restart the ColdFusion application server after the update
- Verify the updated version matches the target fixed release
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-48285 — 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-2026-48285 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