Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-62718 is a medium-severity Confused Deputy (CWE-441) vulnerability in Axios Axios. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Proxy (T1090); ranked in the top 36% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-16 (Security and Privacy Attributes) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-62718 affects Axios, a promise-based HTTP client used in browsers and Node.js environments, in versions prior to 1.15.0 and 0.31.0. The vulnerability stems from improper hostname normalization during NO_PROXY rule checks, causing requests to loopback addresses such as "localhost." (with a trailing dot) or "[::1]" (IPv6 loopback literal) to bypass NO_PROXY matching and route through the configured proxy instead. This behavior contradicts developer expectations for protecting loopback or internal services via NO_PROXY, enabling proxy bypass and server-side request forgery (SSRF) risks, as classified under CWE-441 (Unintended Proxy or Client-side Proxy) and CWE-918 (SSRF). The issue carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.9 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L).
Remote, unauthenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability by crafting requests with specially formatted hostnames that evade NO_PROXY checks, forcing Axios-based applications to send traffic through a proxy to otherwise protected loopback or internal endpoints. Exploitation requires the ability to influence HTTP requests made by the affected Axios instance, such as via user-supplied inputs in web applications. Successful attacks allow attackers to achieve SSRF, potentially accessing sensitive internal services, with high confidentiality impact due to changed scope, alongside low integrity and availability effects.
Mitigation is available through upgrading to Axios versions 1.15.0 or 0.31.0, where the issue is fixed via commits such as 03cdfc99e8db32a390e12128208b6778492cee9c and fb3befb6daac6cad26b2e54094d0f2d9e47f24df, as merged in pull request 10661 on the Axios GitHub repository. These changes address hostname normalization per relevant standards documented in RFC 1034 (section 3.1) and RFC 3986 (section 3.2.2). No additional vendor advisories are referenced beyond the GitHub fixes.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-209381
Vulnerability Data
Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Prior to 1.15.0 and 0.31.0, Axios does not correctly handle hostname normalization when checking NO_PROXY rules. Requests to loopback addresses like localhost. (with a trailing dot) or [::1]…
more
(IPv6 literal) skip NO_PROXY matching and go through the configured proxy. This goes against what developers expect and lets attackers force requests through a proxy, even if NO_PROXY is set up to protect loopback or internal services. This issue leads to the possibility of proxy bypass and SSRF vulnerabilities allowing attackers to reach sensitive loopback or internal services despite the configured protections. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.15.0 and 0.31.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.2V9.1.3V10.4.6V2.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Associating and preserving security attributes such as original source identity prevents the loss of provenance that creates the confused deputy.
Information flow enforcement requires preserving and checking source attributes before forwarding requests outside the trust boundary.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Access enforcement directly stops a component from acting on forwarded requests without verifying original source authorizations.
Boundary protection limits and inspects external forwarding, reducing the ability of an intermediary to act as an unintended proxy.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Proper conveyance and verification of original identity assertions directly prevents loss of request source when forwarding.
Secure development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Enforcing least-privilege authorizations on forwarded requests reduces confused-deputy abuse even if source identity is lost.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect unsafe equivalence flaws but does not prevent them at design time.
Access-control rules can limit which upstream identities may cause the product to act on their behalf, reducing confused-deputy risk.
Proper identity management ensures the original requester identity is preserved and validated before the product forwards requests.
Explicit access-rights assignment can restrict the product’s ability to act as an unintended proxy for external actors.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Privileged-access controls limit the rights the product may exercise on behalf of upstream callers, mitigating confused-deputy abuse.