LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2025-68616: WeasyPrint Vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Protection Bypass via HTTP Redirect

WeasyPrint helps web developers to create PDF documents. Prior to version 68.0, a server-side request forgery (SSRF) protection bypass exists in WeasyPrint's `default_url_fetcher`. The vulnerability allows attackers to access internal network resources (such as `localhost` services or cloud metadata endpoints) even when a developer has implemented a custom `url_fetcher` to block such access. This occurs because the underlying `urllib` library follows HTTP redirects automatically without re-validating the new destination against the developer's security policy. Version 68.0 contains a patch for the issue.

HighCVSS 7.5Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

WeasyPrint before 68.0 can be tricked into fetching internal URLs during PDF generation if a blocked URL redirects to an internal target. This can expose sensitive internal services or cloud metadata when applications render attacker-controlled or untrusted HTML into PDFs.

Executive priority

Prioritize remediation for internet-facing or multi-tenant PDF generation services. The business risk is unauthorized internal data exposure, not broad system takeover, but cloud metadata or internal admin services can make impact significant.

Technical view

The issue is an SSRF protection bypass in WeasyPrint's default_url_fetcher. Developer-supplied filtering can block the original URL, but urllib follows HTTP redirects automatically and the redirected destination is not revalidated against that policy. Version 68.0 patches the issue.

Likely exposure

Exposure is most likely where WeasyPrint prior to 68.0 renders untrusted HTML, templates, or user-controlled URLs, especially in environments with access to internal services, localhost-only endpoints, or cloud metadata services.

Exploitation context

The bundle marks KEV as false, and the provided sources do not establish active exploitation. The attack requires an application path that lets an attacker influence resources fetched by WeasyPrint during PDF generation.

Researcher notes

Evidence supports CWE-918 SSRF and CWE-601 redirect behavior. The key defensive question is whether redirects are evaluated against the same allow or deny policy as the original URL. The provided evidence does not include exploit prevalence.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade WeasyPrint to version 68.0 or later.
  • Check vendor or distribution guidance for packaged WeasyPrint builds.
  • Restrict PDF rendering workloads from reaching internal services where possible.
  • Review custom url_fetcher logic for redirect destination validation assumptions.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory applications and containers using WeasyPrint versions before 68.0.
  • Identify PDF generation paths that process untrusted HTML or external resources.
  • Confirm deployed packages resolve to WeasyPrint 68.0 or a patched downstream build.
  • Review tests to ensure redirected destinations are revalidated by policy.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
7

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 · medium confidence lookup

CWE-601: User-session and phishing behavior lookup

Client-side and session-facing weaknesses should be reviewed alongside initial-access and user-execution behaviors. 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-2025-68616 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
7.5 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

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

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
6Source 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
7.5CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N3.93.6GitHub_M
7.5CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N3.93.6redhat-SADP

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

7.5High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2025-68616Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

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

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
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-SADPWeasyPrint: WeasyPrint Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
other:Red Hat severity ratingcvssV3_1
  • 2026-01-19T16:00:58.220Z: Reported to Red Hat.
  • 2026-01-19T15:20:23.702Z: Made public.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
KozeaWeasyPrint< 68.0Listed
Weakness

CWE details

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

CWE-601 · source CWE mapping

URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')

URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

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.