LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2025-62718: Axios has a NO_PROXY Hostname Normalization Bypass that Leads to SSRF

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] (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.

HighCVSS 7Not KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

Axios versions before 1.15.0 and 0.31.0 may mishandle NO_PROXY protections for loopback or internal hosts. In affected server-side applications, a request developers expected to stay direct can instead go through a configured proxy, creating SSRF exposure to sensitive local or internal services.

Executive priority

Prioritize remediation for internet-facing or integration-heavy services that make server-side HTTP requests. This is high risk because it can undermine network boundaries used to protect internal services, but urgency should be scoped by actual Axios, proxy, and user-controlled URL exposure.

Technical view

The flaw is a hostname normalization bypass in Axios NO_PROXY matching. Certain loopback host forms, including trailing-dot localhost and IPv6 loopback literals, can fail NO_PROXY checks and be proxied. The issue maps to SSRF/proxy bypass classes and is fixed in Axios 1.15.0 and 0.31.0.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely in Node.js applications using Axios with proxy settings and NO_PROXY rules to protect loopback or internal services, especially where users or external data influence server-side request destinations.

Exploitation context

The source bundle does not show active exploitation, and KEV is false. Practical risk depends on whether attackers can influence Axios request URLs and whether the proxy path can reach sensitive internal or loopback services.

Researcher notes

Focus assessment on URL parsing, hostname normalization, proxy decision logic, and NO_PROXY matching. Do not assume exploitability from package presence alone; confirm reachable call paths, attacker-controlled destinations, and proxy routing to protected assets.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade Axios to 1.15.0, 0.31.0, or later supported versions.
  • Review vendor and downstream advisories, including Red Hat errata where applicable.
  • Audit services that combine Axios, proxy settings, and NO_PROXY protections.
  • Add defense-in-depth allowlists for server-side outbound request destinations.
  • Restrict proxy access to loopback and sensitive internal services where possible.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory lockfiles and runtime images for affected Axios versions.
  • Identify server-side Axios usage that accepts user-influenced URLs.
  • Review proxy and NO_PROXY configuration for loopback and internal host assumptions.
  • Confirm upgraded builds use Axios 1.15.0, 0.31.0, or later.
  • Check application logs for unexpected proxied requests to internal destinations.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
11

Public sources used

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-1289: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-441: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-918: Information exposure and cloud metadata lookup

Information exposure and SSRF weaknesses can make discovery, cloud metadata, and credential material review relevant. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
description · low confidence lookup

Cloud metadata behavior lookup

The CVE wording references SSRF or metadata access, so cloud discovery and credential material review may help. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2025-62718 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
7 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

2CVSS vectors
5Timeline events
2ADP providers
43Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: pocAutomatable: yesTechnical Impact: partial

CVSS vector scores

2 official scores

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
7CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L2.24.7redhat-SADP
6.3CVSS 4.0MediumCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N——GitHub_M

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 4.0 score

6.3Medium
CVSS 4.0 vector shape for CVE-2025-62718Attack VectorAttack ComplexityAttack RequirementsPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionVS ConfidentialityVS IntegrityVS AvailabilitySS ConfidentialitySS IntegritySS Availability

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

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Attack Requirements
NonePresent
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NonePassiveActive
VS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
VS Integrity
HighLowNone
VS Availability
HighLowNone
SS Confidentiality
HighLowNone
SS Integrity
HighLowNone
SS Availability
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Made public.

  3. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  4. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Reported to Red Hat.

  5. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
other:ssvc
redhat-SADPaxios: Axios: Server-Side Request Forgery and proxy bypass due to improper hostname normalization
other:Red Hat severity ratingcvssV3_1
  • 2026-04-09T15:01:48.111Z: Reported to Red Hat.
  • 2026-04-09T14:31:46.067Z: Made public.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
axiosaxios>= 1.0.0, < 1.15.0, < 0.31.0Listed
Weakness

CWE details

CWE-1289CWE-441CWE-918

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-1289 · source CWE mapping

Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input

Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Open CWE intelligenceSame-CWE CVEs
CWE-441 · source CWE mapping

Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')

Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Open CWE intelligenceSame-CWE CVEs
CWE-918 · source CWE mapping

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Open CWE intelligenceSame-CWE CVEs