CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2025-59055

CVE-2025-59055 — InstantCMS vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery via package installer

InstantCMS is a free and open source content management system. A blind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in InstantCMS up to and including 2.17.3 allows authenticated remote attackers to make nay HTTP/HTTPS request via the package parameter. It is possible to make any HTTP/HTTPS request to any website in installer functionality. Due to such vulnerability it is possible to for example scan local network, call local services and its functions, conduct a DoS attack, and/or disclose a server's real IP if it's behind a reverse proxy. It is also possible to exhaust server resources by sending plethora of such requests. As of time of publication, no patched releases are available.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

instantsoft

icms2

CVSS base

4.7

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

Products (1)

icms2

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
4.7CVSS 3.1MEDIUMcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-918

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /HTTPS, /or.

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.