CVE-2025-32395 (GCVE-0-2025-32395)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-04-10 13:25 – Updated: 2025-04-10 14:14- CWE-200 - Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/vitejs/vite/security/advisorie… | x_refsource_CONFIRM |
| https://github.com/vitejs/vite/commit/175a83909f0… | x_refsource_MISC |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-32395",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-10T14:14:30.473382Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-10T14:14:40.591Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "vite",
"vendor": "vitejs",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.2.0, \u003c 6.2.6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.1.0, \u003c 6.1.5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.0.0, \u003c 6.0.15"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 5.0.0, \u003c 5.4.18"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 4.5.13"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Vite is a frontend tooling framework for javascript. Prior to 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18, and 4.5.13, the contents of arbitrary files can be returned to the browser if the dev server is running on Node or Bun. HTTP 1.1 spec (RFC 9112) does not allow # in request-target. Although an attacker can send such a request. For those requests with an invalid request-line (it includes request-target), the spec recommends to reject them with 400 or 301. The same can be said for HTTP 2. On Node and Bun, those requests are not rejected internally and is passed to the user land. For those requests, the value of http.IncomingMessage.url contains #. Vite assumed req.url won\u0027t contain # when checking server.fs.deny, allowing those kinds of requests to bypass the check. Only apps explicitly exposing the Vite dev server to the network (using --host or server.host config option) and running the Vite dev server on runtimes that are not Deno (e.g. Node, Bun) are affected. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18, and 4.5.13."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-200",
"description": "CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-10T13:25:19.177Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/security/advisories/GHSA-356w-63v5-8wf4",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/security/advisories/GHSA-356w-63v5-8wf4"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/commit/175a83909f02d3b554452a7bd02b9f340cdfef70",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/commit/175a83909f02d3b554452a7bd02b9f340cdfef70"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-356w-63v5-8wf4",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Vite has an `server.fs.deny` bypass with an invalid `request-target`"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-32395",
"datePublished": "2025-04-10T13:25:19.177Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-04-06T19:46:02.464Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-10T14:14:40.591Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"epss": {
"cve": "CVE-2025-32395",
"date": "2026-11-11",
"epss": "0.0181",
"percentile": "0.78901"
},
"nvd": {
"cve": {
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"product": "vite",
"vendor": "vitejs",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.2.0, \u003c 6.2.6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.1.0, \u003c 6.1.5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.0.0, \u003c 6.0.15"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 5.0.0, \u003c 5.4.18"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 4.5.13"
}
]
}
],
"source": "security-advisories@github.com"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Vite is a frontend tooling framework for javascript. Prior to 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18, and 4.5.13, the contents of arbitrary files can be returned to the browser if the dev server is running on Node or Bun. HTTP 1.1 spec (RFC 9112) does not allow # in request-target. Although an attacker can send such a request. For those requests with an invalid request-line (it includes request-target), the spec recommends to reject them with 400 or 301. The same can be said for HTTP 2. On Node and Bun, those requests are not rejected internally and is passed to the user land. For those requests, the value of http.IncomingMessage.url contains #. Vite assumed req.url won\u0027t contain # when checking server.fs.deny, allowing those kinds of requests to bypass the check. Only apps explicitly exposing the Vite dev server to the network (using --host or server.host config option) and running the Vite dev server on runtimes that are not Deno (e.g. Node, Bun) are affected. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18, and 4.5.13."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "Vite es un framework frontend para javascript. Antes de 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18 y 4.5.13, el contenido de archivos arbitrarios se puede devolver al navegador si el servidor de desarrollo se ejecuta en Node o Bun. La especificaci\u00f3n HTTP 1.1 (RFC 9112) no permite # en el destino de la solicitud. Aunque un atacante puede enviar dicha solicitud. Para aquellas solicitudes con una l\u00ednea de solicitud no v\u00e1lida (incluye el objetivo de la solicitud), la especificaci\u00f3n recomienda rechazarlas con 400 o 301. Lo mismo puede decirse de HTTP 2. En Node y Bun, esas solicitudes no se rechazan internamente y se pasan al \u00e1rea del usuario. Para esas solicitudes, el valor de http.IncomingMessage.url contiene #. Vite asumi\u00f3 que req.url no contendr\u00e1 # al verificar server.fs.deny, permitiendo que ese tipo de solicitudes eviten la verificaci\u00f3n. Solo se ven afectadas las aplicaciones que exponen expl\u00edcitamente el servidor de desarrollo de Vite a la red (utilizando la opci\u00f3n de configuraci\u00f3n --host o server.host) y que ejecutan el servidor de desarrollo de Vite en entornos de ejecuci\u00f3n que no son Deno (por ejemplo, Node, Bun). Esta vulnerabilidad se corrigi\u00f3 en 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18 y 4.5.13."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2025-32395",
"lastModified": "2026-06-17T09:11:55.893",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV40": [
{
"cvssData": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"baseScore": 6.0,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
"valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2025-32395",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-10T14:14:30.473382Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2025-04-10T14:15:29.463",
"references": [
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"url": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/commit/175a83909f02d3b554452a7bd02b9f340cdfef70"
},
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"url": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/security/advisories/GHSA-356w-63v5-8wf4"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
"vulnStatus": "Deferred",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-200"
}
],
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
},
"redhat_vex": {
"aggregate_severity": "Moderate",
"current_release_date": "2026-06-28T12:01:13+00:00",
"cve": "CVE-2025-32395",
"id": "CVE-2025-32395",
"initial_release_date": "2025-04-10T13:25:19.177000+00:00",
"product_status:known_affected": "11",
"source": "Red Hat CSAF VEX",
"status": "final",
"title": "vite: Vite has an `server.fs.deny` bypass with an invalid `request-target`",
"url": "https://security.access.redhat.com/data/csaf/v2/vex/2025/cve-2025-32395.json",
"version": "3"
},
"vulnrichment": {
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-32395",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-10T14:14:30.473382Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-10T14:14:00.476Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "vite",
"vendor": "vitejs",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.2.0, \u003c 6.2.6"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.1.0, \u003c 6.1.5"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 6.0.0, \u003c 6.0.15"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 5.0.0, \u003c 5.4.18"
},
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 4.5.13"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Vite is a frontend tooling framework for javascript. Prior to 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18, and 4.5.13, the contents of arbitrary files can be returned to the browser if the dev server is running on Node or Bun. HTTP 1.1 spec (RFC 9112) does not allow # in request-target. Although an attacker can send such a request. For those requests with an invalid request-line (it includes request-target), the spec recommends to reject them with 400 or 301. The same can be said for HTTP 2. On Node and Bun, those requests are not rejected internally and is passed to the user land. For those requests, the value of http.IncomingMessage.url contains #. Vite assumed req.url won\u0027t contain # when checking server.fs.deny, allowing those kinds of requests to bypass the check. Only apps explicitly exposing the Vite dev server to the network (using --host or server.host config option) and running the Vite dev server on runtimes that are not Deno (e.g. Node, Bun) are affected. This vulnerability is fixed in 6.2.6, 6.1.5, 6.0.15, 5.4.18, and 4.5.13."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
"userInteraction": "PASSIVE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "NONE"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-200",
"description": "CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-10T13:25:19.177Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/security/advisories/GHSA-356w-63v5-8wf4",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/security/advisories/GHSA-356w-63v5-8wf4"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/commit/175a83909f02d3b554452a7bd02b9f340cdfef70",
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/vitejs/vite/commit/175a83909f02d3b554452a7bd02b9f340cdfef70"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-356w-63v5-8wf4",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Vite has an `server.fs.deny` bypass with an invalid `request-target`"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-32395",
"datePublished": "2025-04-10T13:25:19.177Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-04-06T19:46:02.464Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-10T14:14:40.591Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
}
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.