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 may misread equivalent forms of local or internal hostnames when applying NO_PROXY rules. A request expected to connect directly can instead pass through a configured proxy, potentially exposing sensitive traffic or enabling access to protected services. Successful abuse requires particular proxy settings and request conditions, but confidentiality impact may be high.

Executive priority

Prioritize remediation for internet-facing applications that make server-side requests through proxies or protect internal destinations with NO_PROXY. Upgrade promptly in those environments. Other deployments should still inventory Axios and confirm whether the required proxy and attacker-controlled request conditions exist before setting remediation timelines.

Technical view

Before versions 1.15.0 and 0.31.0, Axios checks NO_PROXY without correctly normalizing certain hostnames, including trailing-dot loopback names and IPv6 literals. This mismatch can route excluded destinations through a configured proxy. The resulting proxy-routing bypass can contribute to SSRF against loopback or internal services. CVSS 3.1 is 7.0 with high attack complexity.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely where affected Axios versions use a configured proxy, rely on NO_PROXY for loopback or internal destinations, and process attacker-influenced request targets. Systems without these conditions may have lower practical exposure. Direct and transitive Axios dependencies should both be assessed.

Exploitation context

The supplied record is not listed in KEV and provides no evidence of active exploitation. Exploitation is remotely reachable without privileges or user interaction, but requires specific proxy, NO_PROXY, hostname, and application request-flow conditions. Treat public-facing server-side request features as higher-priority review targets.

Researcher notes

The weakness is a hostname canonicalization mismatch at the proxy-exclusion boundary, mapped to CWE-1289, CWE-441, and CWE-918. Review both trailing-dot DNS names and IPv6 literal handling. The CVSS vector is AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:L. The supplied evidence establishes affected ranges and fixes, but not observed exploitation.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade affected 1.x installations to Axios 1.15.0 or later.
  • Upgrade affected 0.x installations to Axios 0.31.0 or later.
  • Update lockfiles and redeploy applications containing vulnerable transitive Axios dependencies.
  • Restrict attacker influence over outbound request destinations and enforce destination allowlists.
  • Review proxy controls so internal services do not depend solely on NO_PROXY matching.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory deployed Axios versions, including bundled and transitive copies.
  • Confirm whether affected applications configure proxies and NO_PROXY exclusions.
  • Identify request flows where external input can influence destination hostnames.
  • Test authorized staging environments for consistent routing of normalized loopback and internal hostnames.
  • Verify rebuilt deployments resolve Axios to a fixed version.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
7

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
45Source 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