Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

Vite has an `server.fs.deny` bypass with an invalid `request-target`

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2025-32395CWE-200

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Blocked
CVSS
6.0
EPSS
1.8% Top 22%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2025-04-10
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)… More

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't 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.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2025-32395: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 4.0
Medium · 6.0 / 10

Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with no privileges and some user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality.

Over the internetNo login neededNeeds a user to actWorks reliablySerious impact
How the score is built11 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Attack requirementsThe attack only works under specific conditions, such as a race or a particular setup.
    Present
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionA user has to do something ordinary, such as visit a page or open a file.
    Passive
  • Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impact (vulnerable system)Data cannot be changed by the attacker.
    None
  • Availability impact (vulnerable system)The component keeps working normally.
    None
  • Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.
    None
  • Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.
    None
  • Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.
    None
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
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2025-04-10
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2025-06-30
    F5 ships a rule
    Vite Framework Arbitrary File Read (3)
  3. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2025-06-30, 81 days after the CVE was published.

2025-06-30New rule200009331Source
Added: signature 200009331 "Vite Framework Arbitrary File Read (3)" (Information Leakage, risk Medium), systems: Other Web Server, JavaScript. References: CVE-2025-32395.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.