CVE-2025-62718
ADVISORY - githubSummary
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.
According to RFC 1034 §3.1 and RFC 3986 §3.2.2, a hostname can have a trailing dot to show it is a fully qualified domain name (FQDN). At the DNS level, localhost. is the same as localhost.
However, Axios does a literal string comparison instead of normalizing hostnames before checking NO_PROXY. This causes requests like http://localhost.:8080/ and http://[::1]:8080/ to be incorrectly proxied.
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.
PoC
import http from "http";
import axios from "axios";
const proxyPort = 5300;
http.createServer((req, res) => {
console.log("[PROXY] Got:", req.method, req.url, "Host:", req.headers.host);
res.writeHead(200, { "Content-Type": "text/plain" });
res.end("proxied");
}).listen(proxyPort, () => console.log("Proxy", proxyPort));
process.env.HTTP_PROXY = `http://127.0.0.1:${proxyPort}`;
process.env.NO_PROXY = "localhost,127.0.0.1,::1";
async function test(url) {
try {
await axios.get(url, { timeout: 2000 });
} catch {}
}
setTimeout(async () => {
console.log("\n[*] Testing http://localhost.:8080/");
await test("http://localhost.:8080/"); // goes through proxy
console.log("\n[*] Testing http://[::1]:8080/");
await test("http://[::1]:8080/"); // goes through proxy
}, 500);
Expected: Requests bypass the proxy (direct to loopback).
Actual: Proxy logs requests for localhost. and [::1].
Impact
Applications that rely on
NO_PROXY=localhost,127.0.0.1,::1for protecting loopback/internal access are vulnerable.Attackers controlling request URLs can:
- Force Axios to send local traffic through an attacker-controlled proxy.
- Bypass SSRF mitigations relying on NO_PROXY rules.
- Potentially exfiltrate sensitive responses from internal services via the proxy.
Affected Versions
- Confirmed on Axios 1.12.2 (latest at time of testing).
- affects all versions that rely on Axios’ current
NO_PROXYevaluation.
Remediation
Axios should normalize hostnames before evaluating NO_PROXY, including:
- Strip trailing dots from hostnames (per RFC 3986).
- Normalize IPv6 literals by removing brackets for matching.
GitHub
CVSS SCORE
9.3critical| Package | Type | OS Name | OS Version | Affected Ranges | Fix Versions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| axios | npm | - | - | <1.15.0 | 1.15.0 |
CVSS:4 Severity and metrics
The CVSS metrics represent different qualitative aspects of a vulnerability that impact the overall score, as defined by the CVSS Specification.
The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone). One example of an Adjacent attack would be an ARP (IPv4) or neighbor discovery (IPv6) flood leading to a denial of service on the local LAN segment (e.g., CVE-2013-6014).
Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.
The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges.
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Subsequent System.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Subsequent System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.