Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.17% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2025-61916High confidence
Spinnaker vulnerable to SSRF due to improper restrictions on http from user input
spinnaker · spinnaker
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-VRJC-Q2FH-6X9H ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.9HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Medium, lowered one band.downgradedsince 5 Jan 2026
Compensating controls
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs spinnaker spinnaker and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Open-source package ranges4 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mavenio.spinnaker.clouddriver:clouddriver-artifacts | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 0; fixed 2025.1.6 | 2025.1.6 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Mavenio.spinnaker.clouddriver:clouddriver-artifacts | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 2025.2.0; fixed 2025.2.3 | 2025.2.3 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| mavenio.spinnaker.clouddriver:clouddriver-artifacts | < 2025.1.6 | 2025.1.6 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 6 Jan 2026 |
| mavenio.spinnaker.clouddriver:clouddriver-artifacts | >= 2025.2.0, < 2025.2.3 | 2025.2.3 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 6 Jan 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Spinnaker is an open source, multi-cloud continuous delivery platform. Versions prior to 2025.1.6, 2025.2.3, and 2025.3.0 are vulnerable to server-side request forgery. The primary impact is allowing users to fetch data from a remote URL. This data can be then injected into spinnaker pipelines via helm or other methods to extract things LIKE idmsv1 authentication data. This also includes calling internal spinnaker API's via a get and similar endpoints. Further, depending upon the artifact in question, auth data may be exposed to arbitrary endpoints (e.g. GitHub auth headers) leading to credentials exposure. To trigger this, a spinnaker installation MUST have two things. The first is an artifact enabled that allows user input. This includes GitHub file artifacts, BitBucket, GitLab, HTTP artifacts and similar artifact providers. JUST enabling the http artifact provider will add a "no-auth" http provider that could be used to extract link local data (e.g. AWS Metadata information). The second is a system that can consume the output of these artifacts. e.g. Rosco helm can use this to fetch values data. K8s account manifests if the API returns JSON can be used to inject that data into the pipeline itself though the pipeline would fail. This vulnerability is fixed in versions 2025.1.6, 2025.2.3, and 2025.3.0. As a workaround, disable HTTP account types that allow user input of a given URL. This is probably not feasible in most cases. Git, Docker and other artifact account types with explicit URL configurations bypass this limitation and should be safe as they limit artifact URL loading. Alternatively, use one of the various vendors which provide OPA policies to restrict pipelines from accessing or saving a pipeline with invalid URLs.
What
Spinnaker is an open source, multi-cloud continuous delivery platform. Versions prior to 2025.1.6, 2025.2.3, and 2025.3.0 are vulnerable to server-side request forgery. The primary impact is allowing users to fetch data from a remote URL. This data can be then injected into spinnaker pipelines via helm or other methods to extract things LIKE idmsv1 authentication data. This also includes calling internal spinnaker API's via a get and similar endpoints. Further, depending upon the artifact in question, auth data may be exposed to arbitrary endpoints (e.g. GitHub auth headers) leading to credentials exposure. To trigger this, a spinnaker installation MUST have two things. The first is an artifact enabled that allows user input. This includes GitHub file artifacts, BitBucket, GitLab, HTTP artifacts and similar artifact providers. JUST enabling the http artifact provider will add a "no-auth" http provider that could be used to extract link local data (e.g. AWS Metadata information). The second is a system that can consume the output of these artifacts. e.g. Rosco helm can use this to fetch values data. K8s account manifests if the API returns JSON can be used to inject that data into the pipeline itself though the pipeline would fail. This vulnerability is fixed in versions 2025.1.6, 2025.2.3, and 2025.3.0. As a workaround, disable HTTP account types that allow user input of a given URL. This is probably not feasible in most cases. Git, Docker and other artifact account types with explicit URL configurations bypass this limitation and should be safe as they limit artifact URL loading. Alternatively, use one of the various vendors which provide OPA policies to restrict pipelines from accessing or saving a pipeline with invalid URLs.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Spinnaker is an open source, multi-cloud continuous delivery platform. Versions prior to 2025.1.6, 2025.2.3, and 2025.3.0 are vulnerable to server-side request forgery. The primary impact is allowing users to fetch data from a remote URL. This data can be then injected into spinnaker pipelines via helm or other methods to extract things LIKE idmsv1 authentication data. This also includes calling internal spinnaker API's via a get and similar endpoints. Further, depending upon the artifact in question, auth data may be exposed to arbitrary endpoints (e.g. GitHub auth headers) leading to credentials exposure. To trigger this, a spinnaker installation MUST have two things. The first is an artifact enabled that allows user input. This includes GitHub file artifacts, BitBucket, GitLab, HTTP artifacts and similar artifact providers. JUST enabling the http artifact provider will add a "no-auth" http provider that could be used to extract link local data (e.g. AWS Metadata information). The second is a system that can consume the output of these artifacts. e.g. Rosco helm can use this to fetch values data. K8s account manifests if the API returns JSON can be used to inject that data into the pipeline itself though the pipeline would fail. This vulnerability is fixed in versions 2025.1.6, 2025.2.3, and 2025.3.0. As a workaround, disable HTTP account types that allow user input of a given URL. This is probably not feasible in most cases. Git, Docker and other artifact account types with explicit URL configurations bypass this limitation and should be safe as they limit artifact URL loading. Alternatively, use one of the various vendors which provide OPA policies to restrict pipelines from accessing or saving a pipeline with invalid URLs.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Improper Input Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ALowAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- spinnaker: < 2025.1.6, >= 2025.2.0, < 2025.2.3
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 5 Jan 2026 · Last source change 5 Jan 2026, 21:30 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-206237
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.