ghsa-fp9p-7hx8-xfp3
Vulnerability from github
Published
2025-02-07 15:32
Modified
2025-02-14 00:30
Severity ?
VLAI Severity ?
Details
A Cross-Protocol Scripting vulnerability is found in Apache Kvrocks.
Since Kvrocks didn't detect if "Host:" or "POST" appears in RESP requests, a valid HTTP request can also be sent to Kvrocks as a valid RESP request and trigger some database operations, which can be dangerous when it is chained with SSRF.
It is similiar to CVE-2016-10517 in Redis.
This issue affects Apache Kvrocks: from the initial version to the latest version 2.11.0.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.11.1, which fixes the issue.
{ "affected": [], "aliases": [ "CVE-2025-25069" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-115" ], "github_reviewed": false, "github_reviewed_at": null, "nvd_published_at": "2025-02-07T13:15:32Z", "severity": "MODERATE" }, "details": "A Cross-Protocol Scripting vulnerability is found in Apache Kvrocks.\n\nSince Kvrocks didn\u0027t detect if \"Host:\" or \"POST\" appears in RESP requests,\na valid HTTP request can also be sent to Kvrocks as a valid RESP request \nand trigger some database operations, which can be\u00a0dangerous when \nit is chained with SSRF.\n\nIt is similiar to\u00a0CVE-2016-10517 in Redis.\n\nThis issue affects Apache Kvrocks: from the initial version to the latest version 2.11.0.\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 2.11.1, which fixes the issue.", "id": "GHSA-fp9p-7hx8-xfp3", "modified": "2025-02-14T00:30:44Z", "published": "2025-02-07T15:32:38Z", "references": [ { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-25069" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/gbxv9gpsskmdzg6z48zm3tvo8cyo9v3t" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2016-10517" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [ { "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N", "type": "CVSS_V3" } ] }
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Loading…