Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2025-68437 is a medium-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Craftcms Craft Cms. Its CVSS base score is 5.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-0845
Vulnerability Data
Craft is a platform for creating digital experiences. In versions 5.0.0-RC1 through 5.8.20 and 4.0.0-RC1 through 4.16.16, the Craft CMS GraphQL `save_<VolumeName>_Asset` mutation is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). This vulnerability arises because the `_file` input, specifically its `url`…
more
parameter, allows the server to fetch content from arbitrary remote locations without proper validation. Attackers can exploit this by providing internal IP addresses or cloud metadata endpoints as the `url`, forcing the server to make requests to these restricted services. The fetched content is then saved as an asset, which can subsequently be accessed and exfiltrated, leading to potential data exposure and infrastructure compromise. This exploitation requires specific GraphQL permissions for asset management within the targeted volume. Users should update to the patched 5.8.21 and 4.16.17 releases to mitigate the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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.
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.
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.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.