Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-918

Allowed

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete

API response cwe.mitre.org

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.

6137 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-F3QQ-49M6-RW8F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-18 20:51 – Updated: 2026-08-18 20:51
VLAI
Summary
Lemur: SSRF protection in certificate revocation checking bypassable via HTTP redirects and DNS rebinding (incomplete fix for GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95)
Details

Summary

The SSRF mitigation added for GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95 (_validate_revocation_url() in lemur /certificates/verify.py) can be bypassed. An operator-role user who uploads a certificate with attacker-controlled CRL/OCSP extensions can still make Lemur reach internal destinations (RFC1918, loopback, link-local 169.254.169.254) during verification.

Affected version

Tested against main (the commit that introduced _validate_revocation_url). The 1.9.2 release predates that guard and is vulnerable to the original SSRF (GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95) directly; this bypass applies to the unreleased mitigation in main. Please map the affected range to whichever release will first contain _validate_revocation_url.

Bypass 1 — HTTP redirect (deterministic)

The guard validates only the URL in the certificate; the CRL fetch then follows redirects without re-validating the target:

# lemur/certificates/verify.py:174
response = requests.get(point, timeout=(3.05, 6))

The attacker hosts the CRL URL on a public host they control (passes the guard); that host returns 302 Location: http://169.254.169.254/.... requests follows it to the internal target the guard never inspected.

Bypass 2 — DNS rebinding / TOCTOU (probabilistic)

The guard resolves once during validation; the fetch re-resolves independently:

# lemur/certificates/verify.py:51
addr = ipaddress.ip_address(socket.gethostbyname(hostname))

A low-TTL attacker name that answers a public IP at check time and an internal IP at fetch time passes the guard but is fetched internally. Same gap affects the OCSP path (openssl ocsp -url <url>, verify.py:90-99).

Relationship to GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95

Incomplete-fix of that mitigation, not a duplicate. Bypass 1 is not mentioned there; bypass 2 is the rebinding gap that advisory's remediation text anticipated ("pins the resolved IP") but the code does not implement.

Affected endpoint

POST /api/1/certificates/upload (operator role) → verify_string → crl_verify / ocsp_verify. Triggered when verification runs (e.g. the check_revocation task).

PoC

  1. Generate a cert with crlDistributionPoints = URI:http://attacker.example/crl.
  2. That host returns 302 Location: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/... (bypass 1), or use a low-TTL rebinding name (bypass 2).
  3. Upload via POST /api/1/certificates/upload as an operator user.
  4. Trigger lemur certificate check_revocation.
  5. Observe the request reach the internal address (tcpdump -nni any host 169.254.169.254).

poc-1

Impact

Blind SSRF from the Lemur host: reach internal services and instance metadata (169.254.169.254 without IMDSv2). Response is parsed as a CRL and discarded — reachability/side-effects, not response exfiltration.

Remediation

  • allow_redirects=False on CRL fetches (or re-validate every redirect hop).
  • Resolve once, pin the IP, connect to the pinned address; route the OCSP URL through the same check.
  • Reject names with any internal A/AAAA record.
Severity
6.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "lemur"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.9.3"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-70667"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-367",
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-08-18T20:51:12Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\nThe SSRF mitigation added for GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95 (`_validate_revocation_url()` in `lemur\n/certificates/verify.py`) can be bypassed. An operator-role user who uploads a certificate with attacker-controlled CRL/OCSP extensions can still make Lemur reach internal destinations (RFC1918, loopback, link-local 169.254.169.254) during verification.\n\n## Affected version\nTested against `main` (the commit that introduced `_validate_revocation_url`). The 1.9.2 release predates that guard and is vulnerable to the original SSRF (GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95) directly; this bypass applies to the unreleased mitigation in `main`. Please map the affected range to whichever release will first contain `_validate_revocation_url`.\n\n## Bypass 1 \u2014 HTTP redirect (deterministic)\nThe guard validates only the URL in the certificate; the CRL fetch then follows redirects without re-validating the target:\n```python\n# lemur/certificates/verify.py:174\nresponse = requests.get(point, timeout=(3.05, 6))   \n```\nThe attacker hosts the CRL URL on a public host they control (passes the guard); that host returns `302 Location: http://169.254.169.254/...`. `requests` follows it to the internal target the guard never inspected.\n\n## Bypass 2 \u2014 DNS rebinding / TOCTOU (probabilistic)\nThe guard resolves once during validation; the fetch re-resolves independently:\n```python\n# lemur/certificates/verify.py:51\naddr = ipaddress.ip_address(socket.gethostbyname(hostname))\n```\n\nA low-TTL attacker name that answers a public IP at check time and an internal IP at fetch time passes the guard but is fetched internally. Same gap affects the OCSP path (`openssl ocsp -url \u003curl\u003e`, verify.py:90-99).\n\n## Relationship to GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95\nIncomplete-fix of that mitigation, not a duplicate. Bypass 1 is not mentioned there; bypass 2 is the rebinding gap that advisory\u0027s remediation text anticipated (\"pins the resolved IP\") but the code does not implement.\n\n## Affected endpoint\n`POST /api/1/certificates/upload` (operator role) \u2192 verify_string \u2192 crl_verify / ocsp_verify. Triggered when verification runs (e.g. the check_revocation task).\n\n## PoC\n1. Generate a cert with `crlDistributionPoints = URI:http://attacker.example/crl`.\n2. That host returns `302 Location: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/...` (bypass 1), or use a low-TTL rebinding name (bypass 2).\n3. Upload via `POST /api/1/certificates/upload` as an operator user.\n4. Trigger `lemur certificate check_revocation`.\n5. Observe the request reach the internal address (`tcpdump -nni any host 169.254.169.254`).\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1140\" height=\"277\" alt=\"poc-1\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f27b9584-b33a-4b9c-b812-8c60302e1892\" /\u003e\n\n## Impact\nBlind SSRF from the Lemur host: reach internal services and instance metadata (169.254.169.254 without IMDSv2). Response is parsed as a CRL and discarded \u2014 reachability/side-effects, not response exfiltration.\n\n## Remediation\n- `allow_redirects=False` on CRL fetches (or re-validate every redirect hop).\n- Resolve once, pin the IP, connect to the pinned address; route the OCSP URL through the same check.\n- Reject names with any internal A/AAAA record.",
  "id": "GHSA-f3qq-49m6-rw8f",
  "modified": "2026-08-18T20:51:13Z",
  "published": "2026-08-18T20:51:12Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Netflix/lemur/security/advisories/GHSA-f3qq-49m6-rw8f"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Netflix/lemur/commit/ed504a830f38a83825b1570302e9f38d6553938a"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/Netflix/lemur"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Netflix/lemur/releases/tag/v1.9.3"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Lemur: SSRF protection in certificate revocation checking bypassable via HTTP redirects and DNS rebinding (incomplete fix for GHSA-54vg-pfh7-jq95)"
}

GHSA-F47C-3C5W-V7P4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-17 18:53 – Updated: 2026-02-19 21:29
VLAI
Summary
Indico has Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in multiple places
Details

Impact

Indico makes outgoing requests to user-provides URLs in various places. This is mostly intentional and part of Indico's functionality, but of course it is never intended to let you access "special" targets such as localhost or cloud metadata endpoints.

Patches

You should to update to Indico 3.3.10 as soon as possible. See the docs for instructions on how to update.

Workarounds

If you do not have IPs that expose sensitive data without authentication (typically because you do not host Indico on AWS), this vulnerability doesn't impact you and you can ignore it (but please upgrade anyway). Also, only event organizers can access endpoints where SSRF could be used to actually see the data returned by such a request. So if you trust your event organizers, the risk is also very limited.

For additional security, both before and after patching, you could also use the common proxy-related environment variables (in particular http_proxy and https_proxy) to force outgoing requests to go through a proxy that limits requests in whatever way you deem useful/necessary. These environment variables would need to be set both on the indico-uwsgi and indico-celery services. Please note that setting up such a proxy is not something we can help you with.

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Severity
6.9 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "indico"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "3.3.10"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-25738"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-367",
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-17T18:53:25Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T16:27:15Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nIndico makes outgoing requests to user-provides URLs in various places. This is mostly intentional and part of Indico\u0027s functionality, but of course it is never intended to let you access \"special\" targets such as localhost or cloud metadata endpoints.\n\n### Patches\nYou should to update to [Indico 3.3.10](https://github.com/indico/indico/releases/tag/v3.3.10) as soon as possible.\nSee [the docs](https://docs.getindico.io/en/stable/installation/upgrade/) for instructions on how to update.\n\n### Workarounds\nIf you do not have IPs that expose sensitive data without authentication (typically because you do not host Indico on AWS), this vulnerability doesn\u0027t impact you and you can ignore it (but please upgrade anyway).\nAlso, only event organizers can access endpoints where SSRF could be used to actually see the data returned by such a request. So if you trust your event organizers, the risk is also very limited.\n\nFor additional security, both before and after patching, you could also use the common proxy-related environment variables (in particular `http_proxy` and `https_proxy`) to force outgoing requests to go through a proxy that limits requests in whatever way you deem useful/necessary. These environment variables would need to be set both on the indico-uwsgi and indico-celery services. Please note that setting up such a proxy is not something we can help you with.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n\n- Open a thread in [our forum](https://talk.getindico.io/)\n- Email us privately at [indico-team@cern.ch](mailto:indico-team@cern.ch)",
  "id": "GHSA-f47c-3c5w-v7p4",
  "modified": "2026-02-19T21:29:46Z",
  "published": "2026-02-17T18:53:25Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/indico/indico/security/advisories/GHSA-f47c-3c5w-v7p4"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25738"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/indico/indico/commit/70d341826116fac5868719a6133f2c26d9345137"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/indico/indico"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/indico/indico/releases/tag/v3.3.10"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Indico has Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in multiple places"
}

GHSA-F48G-5Q5H-XX63

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-03 06:36 – Updated: 2023-11-10 00:30
VLAI
Details

Bon Presta boninstagramcarousel between v5.2.1 to v7.0.0 was discovered to contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via the url parameter at insta_parser.php. This vulnerability allows attackers to use the vulnerable website as proxy to attack other websites or exfiltrate data via a HTTP call.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-43982"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-11-03T05:15:30Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Bon Presta boninstagramcarousel between v5.2.1 to v7.0.0 was discovered to contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via the url parameter at insta_parser.php. This vulnerability allows attackers to use the vulnerable website as proxy to attack other websites or exfiltrate data via a HTTP call.",
  "id": "GHSA-f48g-5q5h-xx63",
  "modified": "2023-11-10T00:30:26Z",
  "published": "2023-11-03T06:36:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-43982"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://security.friendsofpresta.org/modules/2023/11/02/boninstagramcarousel.html"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-F49C-C866-MJCW

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-24 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-23 18:32
VLAI
Details

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in bdthemes Prime Slider – Addons For Elementor bdthemes-prime-slider-lite allows Server Side Request Forgery.This issue affects Prime Slider – Addons For Elementor: from n/a through <= 4.0.10.

Severity
9.1 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-68500"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-12-24T13:16:20Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in bdthemes Prime Slider \u2013 Addons For Elementor bdthemes-prime-slider-lite allows Server Side Request Forgery.This issue affects Prime Slider \u2013 Addons For Elementor: from n/a through \u003c= 4.0.10.",
  "id": "GHSA-f49c-c866-mjcw",
  "modified": "2026-04-23T18:32:01Z",
  "published": "2025-12-24T15:30:41Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-68500"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/bdthemes-prime-slider-lite/vulnerability/wordpress-prime-slider-addons-for-elementor-plugin-4-0-10-server-side-request-forgery-ssrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/bdthemes-prime-slider-lite/vulnerability/wordpress-prime-slider-addons-for-elementor-plugin-4-0-10-server-side-request-forgery-ssrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-F4GW-2P7V-4548

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-20 22:20 – Updated: 2026-09-01 18:39
VLAI
Summary
Axios: NO_PROXY bypass for 0.0.0.0 local addresses in axios
Details

Summary

Axios versions containing lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js do not treat 0.0.0.0 as a local address when evaluating NO_PROXY rules. In Node.js applications that use HTTP_PROXY or HTTPS_PROXY together with NO_PROXY=localhost,127.0.0.1,::1 or similar, a request to http://0.0.0.0:<port>/ can be routed through the configured proxy instead of bypassing it.

The issue is exploitable when an attacker can influence the axios request URL or a followed redirect target, and when the proxy can reach or relay 0.0.0.0 to local services. This is a Node.js runtime proxy-routing issue, not a browser, install-time, or development-tooling issue.

Impact

Applications are affected when all of the following are true:

  • The application runs axios in Node.js with the HTTP adapter.
  • The process uses environment proxy variables such as HTTP_PROXY or HTTPS_PROXY.
  • The process uses NO_PROXY entries such as localhost, 127.0.0.1, or ::1 to keep local traffic out of the proxy path.
  • Attacker-controlled input can influence the request URL or redirect target.
  • The configured proxy does not reject 0.0.0.0 and can reach the local destination.

For plain HTTP targets, the proxy can receive the full request URL, headers, and body, and may be able to observe the local service response. HTTPS targets are less exposed because axios uses CONNECT tunneling in current versions.

Affected Functionality

Affected functionality is limited to environment-derived proxy selection in the Node HTTP adapter:

  • lib/adapters/http.js calls getProxyForUrl(location) and then shouldBypassProxy(location) before applying the proxy.
  • lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js normalizes and compares NO_PROXY entries.
  • Explicit caller-provided config.proxy remains trusted caller configuration.
  • Browser, React Native, XHR, and fetch adapter behavior are not affected.

Technical Details

lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js defines local loopback equivalence through isLoopback(). The current implementation recognizes localhost, IPv4 127.0.0.0/8, IPv6 ::1, and IPv4-mapped loopback forms, but it does not include 0.0.0.0.

At lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js:176, axios treats two hosts as matching when both are considered loopback:

return hostname === entryHost || (isLoopback(hostname) && isLoopback(entryHost));

Because isLoopback('0.0.0.0') returns false, NO_PROXY=localhost,127.0.0.1,::1 does not match http://0.0.0.0:<port>/. lib/adapters/http.js:185-193 then applies the environment proxy.

Proof of Concept of Attack

import http from 'http';
import axios from './index.js';

const listen = (handler, host = '127.0.0.1') =>
  new Promise((resolve) => {
    const server = http.createServer(handler);
    server.listen(0, host, () => resolve(server));
  });

const close = (server) => new Promise((resolve) => server.close(resolve));

const origin = await listen((req, res) => res.end('origin'), '0.0.0.0');

let proxyRequests = 0;
const proxy = await listen((req, res) => {
  proxyRequests += 1;
  res.end('proxied');
});

process.env.http_proxy = `http://127.0.0.1:${proxy.address().port}`;
process.env.HTTP_PROXY = process.env.http_proxy;
process.env.no_proxy = 'localhost,127.0.0.1,::1';
process.env.NO_PROXY = process.env.no_proxy;

try {
  const direct = await axios.get(`http://127.0.0.1:${origin.address().port}/`);
  const zero = await axios.get(`http://0.0.0.0:${origin.address().port}/`);

  console.log({ direct: direct.data, zero: zero.data, proxyRequests });
} finally {
  await close(origin);
  await close(proxy);
}

Expected safe behavior: both 127.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.0 bypass the proxy when the NO_PROXY policy is intended to cover local destinations.

Observed behavior: 127.0.0.1 bypasses the proxy, while 0.0.0.0 is sent through the proxy.

Workarounds

  • Add 0.0.0.0 explicitly to NO_PROXY where local addresses must bypass proxies.
  • Reject or normalize 0.0.0.0 in application URL validation before calling axios.
  • Set proxy: false on axios requests that must never use environment proxies.
  • Configure the proxy itself to reject 0.0.0.0, loopback, link-local, and internal address ranges.
Original Report ### Summary `axios` versions 1.15.0–1.16.1 contain an incomplete loopback-address check in `lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js`. The `isLoopback()` function correctly identifies `127.0.0.0/8` and `::1` as loopback addresses but does not recognise `0.0.0.0` — the IPv4 unspecified address, which routes to the local machine on Linux and macOS. An attacker who controls a URL passed to axios can use `http://0.0.0.0/` to bypass proxy-based SSRF filtering that the application relies upon. ### Details ## Affected versions `>= 1.15.0, <= 1.16.1` The vulnerability was introduced in v1.15.0 when the `shouldBypassProxy` helper was added as a security improvement (PR #10661). --- ## Root cause **File:** `lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js` ```javascript // Line 1 — static allowlist (incomplete) const LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set(['localhost']); // ← 0.0.0.0 missing const isIPv4Loopback = (host) => { const parts = host.split('.'); if (parts.length !== 4) return false; if (parts[0] !== '127') return false; // ← 0.0.0.0: parts[0] = '0' → false return parts.every((p) => /^\d+$/.test(p) && Number(p) >= 0 && Number(p) <= 255); }; const isLoopback = (host) => { if (!host) return false; if (LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES.has(host)) return true; // ← '0.0.0.0' not in set if (isIPv4Loopback(host)) return true; // ← returns false for 0.0.0.0 return isIPv6Loopback(host); }; isLoopback('0.0.0.0') returns false. Node's WHATWG URL parser does not normalise 0.0.0.0 to 127.0.0.1. Other bypass forms are safe: new URL('http://0177.0.0.1/').hostname → '127.0.0.1' (octal), new URL('http://2130706433/').hostname → '127.0.0.1' (decimal), new URL('http://0x7f000001/').hostname → '127.0.0.1' (hex). Only 0.0.0.0 escapes normalisation. ### PoC 'use strict'; // Verbatim copy of relevant logic from axios v1.16.1 shouldBypassProxy.js const LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set(['localhost']); const isIPv4Loopback = (host) => { const parts = host.split('.'); if (parts.length !== 4) return false; if (parts[0] !== '127') return false; return parts.every((p) => /^\d+$/.test(p) && Number(p) >= 0 && Number(p) <= 255); }; const isLoopback = (host) => { if (!host) return false; if (LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES.has(host)) return true; return isIPv4Loopback(host); }; // 1. Show URL parser does NOT normalise 0.0.0.0 console.log(new URL('http://0.0.0.0/').hostname); // → '0.0.0.0' ← NOT normalised console.log(new URL('http://0177.0.0.1/').hostname); // → '127.0.0.1' ← normalised (safe) console.log(new URL('http://2130706433/').hostname); // → '127.0.0.1' ← normalised (safe) // 2. Show isLoopback fails for 0.0.0.0 console.log(isLoopback('0.0.0.0')); // → false ← BUG: should be true console.log(isLoopback('127.0.0.1')); // → true ← correct Verified output on Node.js v22 / axios v1.16.1: 0.0.0.0 ← NOT normalised by URL parser 127.0.0.1 ← octal normalised correctly 127.0.0.1 ← decimal normalised correctly false ← 0.0.0.0 not detected as loopback ⚠ true ← 127.0.0.1 correctly detected ### Impact Applications that: Accept user-supplied URLs and pass them to axios Use a proxy with NO_PROXY=localhost (or similar) for SSRF filtering …can be bypassed by supplying http://0.0.0.0/. Axios routes the request through the proxy (shouldBypassProxy returns false). If the proxy itself does not filter 0.0.0.0, the connection reaches the local machine — exposing internal services such as cloud IMDS endpoints, internal admin panels, or microservice APIs. Fix Minimal (one line): - const LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set(['localhost']); + const LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set(['localhost', '0.0.0.0']); Comprehensive: const isIPv4Unspecified = (host) => host === '0.0.0.0'; const isLoopback = (host) => { if (!host) return false; if (LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES.has(host)) return true; if (isIPv4Loopback(host)) return true; if (isIPv4Unspecified(host)) return true; // add this line return isIPv6Loopback(host); };
Severity
6.9 (Medium)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "axios"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "1.15.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "1.18.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "axios"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.31.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.33.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-67315"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-183",
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-20T22:20:18Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-06T22:18:25Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "## Summary\n\nAxios versions containing `lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js` do not treat `0.0.0.0` as a local address when evaluating `NO_PROXY` rules. In Node.js applications that use `HTTP_PROXY` or `HTTPS_PROXY` together with `NO_PROXY=localhost,127.0.0.1,::1` or similar, a request to `http://0.0.0.0:\u003cport\u003e/` can be routed through the configured proxy instead of bypassing it.\n\nThe issue is exploitable when an attacker can influence the axios request URL or a followed redirect target, and when the proxy can reach or relay `0.0.0.0` to local services. This is a Node.js runtime proxy-routing issue, not a browser, install-time, or development-tooling issue.\n\n## Impact\n\nApplications are affected when all of the following are true:\n\n- The application runs axios in Node.js with the HTTP adapter.\n- The process uses environment proxy variables such as `HTTP_PROXY` or `HTTPS_PROXY`.\n- The process uses `NO_PROXY` entries such as `localhost`, `127.0.0.1`, or `::1` to keep local traffic out of the proxy path.\n- Attacker-controlled input can influence the request URL or redirect target.\n- The configured proxy does not reject `0.0.0.0` and can reach the local destination.\n\nFor plain HTTP targets, the proxy can receive the full request URL, headers, and body, and may be able to observe the local service response. HTTPS targets are less exposed because axios uses CONNECT tunneling in current versions.\n\n## Affected Functionality\n\nAffected functionality is limited to environment-derived proxy selection in the Node HTTP adapter:\n\n- `lib/adapters/http.js` calls `getProxyForUrl(location)` and then `shouldBypassProxy(location)` before applying the proxy.\n- `lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js` normalizes and compares `NO_PROXY` entries.\n- Explicit caller-provided `config.proxy` remains trusted caller configuration.\n- Browser, React Native, XHR, and fetch adapter behavior are not affected.\n\n## Technical Details\n\n`lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js` defines local loopback equivalence through `isLoopback()`. The current implementation recognizes `localhost`, IPv4 `127.0.0.0/8`, IPv6 `::1`, and IPv4-mapped loopback forms, but it does not include `0.0.0.0`.\n\nAt `lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js:176`, axios treats two hosts as matching when both are considered loopback:\n\n```js\nreturn hostname === entryHost || (isLoopback(hostname) \u0026\u0026 isLoopback(entryHost));\n```\n\nBecause `isLoopback(\u00270.0.0.0\u0027)` returns `false`, `NO_PROXY=localhost,127.0.0.1,::1` does not match `http://0.0.0.0:\u003cport\u003e/`. `lib/adapters/http.js:185-193` then applies the environment proxy.\n\n## Proof of Concept of Attack\n\n```js\nimport http from \u0027http\u0027;\nimport axios from \u0027./index.js\u0027;\n\nconst listen = (handler, host = \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027) =\u003e\n  new Promise((resolve) =\u003e {\n    const server = http.createServer(handler);\n    server.listen(0, host, () =\u003e resolve(server));\n  });\n\nconst close = (server) =\u003e new Promise((resolve) =\u003e server.close(resolve));\n\nconst origin = await listen((req, res) =\u003e res.end(\u0027origin\u0027), \u00270.0.0.0\u0027);\n\nlet proxyRequests = 0;\nconst proxy = await listen((req, res) =\u003e {\n  proxyRequests += 1;\n  res.end(\u0027proxied\u0027);\n});\n\nprocess.env.http_proxy = `http://127.0.0.1:${proxy.address().port}`;\nprocess.env.HTTP_PROXY = process.env.http_proxy;\nprocess.env.no_proxy = \u0027localhost,127.0.0.1,::1\u0027;\nprocess.env.NO_PROXY = process.env.no_proxy;\n\ntry {\n  const direct = await axios.get(`http://127.0.0.1:${origin.address().port}/`);\n  const zero = await axios.get(`http://0.0.0.0:${origin.address().port}/`);\n\n  console.log({ direct: direct.data, zero: zero.data, proxyRequests });\n} finally {\n  await close(origin);\n  await close(proxy);\n}\n```\n\nExpected safe behavior: both `127.0.0.1` and `0.0.0.0` bypass the proxy when the `NO_PROXY` policy is intended to cover local destinations.\n\nObserved behavior: `127.0.0.1` bypasses the proxy, while `0.0.0.0` is sent through the proxy.\n\n## Workarounds\n\n- Add `0.0.0.0` explicitly to `NO_PROXY` where local addresses must bypass proxies.\n- Reject or normalize `0.0.0.0` in application URL validation before calling axios.\n- Set `proxy: false` on axios requests that must never use environment proxies.\n- Configure the proxy itself to reject `0.0.0.0`, loopback, link-local, and internal address ranges.\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003eOriginal Report\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n### Summary\n`axios` versions 1.15.0\u20131.16.1 contain an incomplete loopback-address check in `lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js`. The `isLoopback()` function correctly identifies `127.0.0.0/8` and `::1` as loopback addresses but does not recognise `0.0.0.0` \u2014 the IPv4 unspecified address, which routes to the local machine on Linux and macOS.\n\nAn attacker who controls a URL passed to axios can use `http://0.0.0.0/\u003cpath\u003e` to bypass proxy-based SSRF filtering that the application relies upon.\n\n### Details\n## Affected versions\n\n`\u003e= 1.15.0, \u003c= 1.16.1`\n\nThe vulnerability was introduced in v1.15.0 when the `shouldBypassProxy` helper was added as a security improvement (PR #10661).\n\n---\n\n## Root cause\n\n**File:** `lib/helpers/shouldBypassProxy.js`\n\n```javascript\n// Line 1 \u2014 static allowlist (incomplete)\nconst LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set([\u0027localhost\u0027]);   // \u2190 0.0.0.0 missing\n\nconst isIPv4Loopback = (host) =\u003e {\n  const parts = host.split(\u0027.\u0027);\n  if (parts.length !== 4) return false;\n  if (parts[0] !== \u0027127\u0027) return false;   // \u2190 0.0.0.0: parts[0] = \u00270\u0027 \u2192 false\n  return parts.every((p) =\u003e /^\\d+$/.test(p) \u0026\u0026 Number(p) \u003e= 0 \u0026\u0026 Number(p) \u003c= 255);\n};\n\nconst isLoopback = (host) =\u003e {\n  if (!host) return false;\n  if (LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES.has(host)) return true;   // \u2190 \u00270.0.0.0\u0027 not in set\n  if (isIPv4Loopback(host)) return true;           // \u2190 returns false for 0.0.0.0\n  return isIPv6Loopback(host);\n};\n\nisLoopback(\u00270.0.0.0\u0027) returns false.\n\nNode\u0027s WHATWG URL parser does not normalise 0.0.0.0 to 127.0.0.1. Other bypass forms are safe: new URL(\u0027http://0177.0.0.1/\u0027).hostname \u2192 \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027 (octal), new URL(\u0027http://2130706433/\u0027).hostname \u2192 \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027 (decimal), new URL(\u0027http://0x7f000001/\u0027).hostname \u2192 \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027 (hex). Only 0.0.0.0 escapes normalisation.\n\n\n### PoC\n\u0027use strict\u0027;\n\n// Verbatim copy of relevant logic from axios v1.16.1 shouldBypassProxy.js\n\nconst LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set([\u0027localhost\u0027]);\n\nconst isIPv4Loopback = (host) =\u003e {\n  const parts = host.split(\u0027.\u0027);\n  if (parts.length !== 4) return false;\n  if (parts[0] !== \u0027127\u0027) return false;\n  return parts.every((p) =\u003e /^\\d+$/.test(p) \u0026\u0026 Number(p) \u003e= 0 \u0026\u0026 Number(p) \u003c= 255);\n};\n\nconst isLoopback = (host) =\u003e {\n  if (!host) return false;\n  if (LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES.has(host)) return true;\n  return isIPv4Loopback(host);\n};\n\n// 1. Show URL parser does NOT normalise 0.0.0.0\nconsole.log(new URL(\u0027http://0.0.0.0/\u0027).hostname);    // \u2192 \u00270.0.0.0\u0027   \u2190 NOT normalised\nconsole.log(new URL(\u0027http://0177.0.0.1/\u0027).hostname); // \u2192 \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027 \u2190 normalised (safe)\nconsole.log(new URL(\u0027http://2130706433/\u0027).hostname);  // \u2192 \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027 \u2190 normalised (safe)\n\n// 2. Show isLoopback fails for 0.0.0.0\nconsole.log(isLoopback(\u00270.0.0.0\u0027));   // \u2192 false  \u2190 BUG: should be true\nconsole.log(isLoopback(\u0027127.0.0.1\u0027)); // \u2192 true   \u2190 correct\n\nVerified output on Node.js v22 / axios v1.16.1:\n0.0.0.0     \u2190 NOT normalised by URL parser\n127.0.0.1   \u2190 octal normalised correctly\n127.0.0.1   \u2190 decimal normalised correctly\nfalse       \u2190 0.0.0.0 not detected as loopback  \u26a0\ntrue        \u2190 127.0.0.1 correctly detected\n\n### Impact\nApplications that:\n\nAccept user-supplied URLs and pass them to axios\nUse a proxy with NO_PROXY=localhost (or similar) for SSRF filtering\n\u2026can be bypassed by supplying http://0.0.0.0/\u003cpath\u003e. Axios routes the request through the proxy (shouldBypassProxy returns false). If the proxy itself does not filter 0.0.0.0, the connection reaches the local machine \u2014 exposing internal services such as cloud IMDS endpoints, internal admin panels, or microservice APIs.\n\nFix\nMinimal (one line):\n\n- const LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set([\u0027localhost\u0027]);\n+ const LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES = new Set([\u0027localhost\u0027, \u00270.0.0.0\u0027]);\n\nComprehensive:\n\nconst isIPv4Unspecified = (host) =\u003e host === \u00270.0.0.0\u0027;\n\nconst isLoopback = (host) =\u003e {\n  if (!host) return false;\n  if (LOOPBACK_HOSTNAMES.has(host)) return true;\n  if (isIPv4Loopback(host)) return true;\n  if (isIPv4Unspecified(host)) return true;   // add this line\n  return isIPv6Loopback(host);\n};\n\u003c/details\u003e",
  "id": "GHSA-f4gw-2p7v-4548",
  "modified": "2026-09-01T18:39:43Z",
  "published": "2026-07-20T22:20:18Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/security/advisories/GHSA-f4gw-2p7v-4548"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-67315"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-68946"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/pull/11000"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/pull/11001"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/commit/1417285c69344bbcc6420a021f67dee0c6fedb2d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/commit/32fc489632377d214db55bfa4e2c48486a7d7ce2"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/releases/tag/v0.33.0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/axios/axios/releases/tag/v1.18.0"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/axios-before-no-proxy-bypass-via"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Axios: NO_PROXY bypass for 0.0.0.0 local addresses in axios"
}

GHSA-F4QF-JJ8G-F9QC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-17 21:31 – Updated: 2026-08-18 21:31
VLAI
Details

A blind SSRF attack in DataHub v.1.5.0.1 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the server retrieving an image from a crafted URL, and it fails to return the content or any errors directly.

Severity
9.8 (Critical)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-50775"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-17T19:16:31Z",
    "severity": "CRITICAL"
  },
  "details": "A blind SSRF attack in DataHub v.1.5.0.1 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the server retrieving an image from a crafted URL, and it fails to return the content or any errors directly.",
  "id": "GHSA-f4qf-jj8g-f9qc",
  "modified": "2026-08-18T21:31:40Z",
  "published": "2026-08-17T21:31:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-50775"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://datahub.com"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Henkel-CyberVM/CVEs/tree/main/CVE-2026-50775"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-F4QM-WPP3-7V77

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-19 00:00 – Updated: 2022-05-27 00:00
VLAI
Details

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in GitHub repository jgraph/drawio prior to 18.0.7.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-1767"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-05-18T16:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in GitHub repository jgraph/drawio prior to 18.0.7.",
  "id": "GHSA-f4qm-wpp3-7v77",
  "modified": "2022-05-27T00:00:53Z",
  "published": "2022-05-19T00:00:24Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1767"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jgraph/drawio/commit/c63f3a04450f30798df47f9badbc74eb8a69fbdf"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/b1ce040c-9ed1-4d36-9b48-82df42310868"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-F4VR-C276-C5CM

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:31 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:31
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability in the web interface of Cisco TelePresence Conductor, Cisco Expressway Series, and Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to trigger an HTTP request from an affected server to an arbitrary host. This type of attack is commonly referred to as server-side request forgery (SSRF). The vulnerability is due to insufficient access controls for the REST API of Cisco Expressway Series and Cisco TelePresence VCS. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HTTP request to the affected server. Versions prior to XC4.3.4 are affected.

Severity
5.0 (Medium)
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2019-1679"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-02-07T21:29:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability in the web interface of Cisco TelePresence Conductor, Cisco Expressway Series, and Cisco TelePresence Video Communication Server (VCS) Software could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to trigger an HTTP request from an affected server to an arbitrary host. This type of attack is commonly referred to as server-side request forgery (SSRF). The vulnerability is due to insufficient access controls for the REST API of Cisco Expressway Series and Cisco TelePresence VCS. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted HTTP request to the affected server. Versions prior to XC4.3.4 are affected.",
  "id": "GHSA-f4vr-c276-c5cm",
  "modified": "2022-05-13T01:31:25Z",
  "published": "2022-05-13T01:31:25Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1679"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190206-rest-api-ssrf"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/106940"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-F4W7-4MQ2-VXRX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-15 18:31 – Updated: 2025-09-15 18:31
VLAI
Details

A vulnerability was detected in ZKEACMS 4.3. Impacted is the function Proxy of the file src/ZKEACMS/Controllers/MediaController.cs. Performing manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

Severity
6.3 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
2.1 (Low)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-10471"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-09-15T17:15:34Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "A vulnerability was detected in ZKEACMS 4.3. Impacted is the function Proxy of the file src/ZKEACMS/Controllers/MediaController.cs. Performing manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.",
  "id": "GHSA-f4w7-4mq2-vxrx",
  "modified": "2025-09-15T18:31:06Z",
  "published": "2025-09-15T18:31:06Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-10471"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/August829/Yu/blob/main/58ead8e7e08bfb022.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/August829/Yu/blob/main/58ead8e7e08bfb022.md#poc"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.323890"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.323890"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.648387"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-F54R-392M-JMR7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-29 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-29 12:31
VLAI
Details

Apache Traffic Server allows redirect-limit bypass when plugins reset the retry counter, enabling SSRF amplification.

This issue affects Apache Traffic Server: from 8.0.0 through 8.1.9, from 9.0.0 through 9.2.14, from 10.0.0 through 10.1.3.

Users are recommended to upgrade to version 9.2.15 or 10.1.4, which fix the issue.

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
8.2 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-58189"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-29T10:16:44Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Apache Traffic Server allows redirect-limit bypass when plugins reset the retry counter, enabling SSRF amplification.\n\nThis issue affects Apache Traffic Server: from 8.0.0 through 8.1.9, from 9.0.0 through 9.2.14, from 10.0.0 through 10.1.3.\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 9.2.15 or 10.1.4, which fix the issue.",
  "id": "GHSA-f54r-392m-jmr7",
  "modified": "2026-07-29T12:31:22Z",
  "published": "2026-07-29T12:31:22Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58189"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread/5prl9glcm9g2swnq9hqxvnokylm1gr6d"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}

No mitigation information available for this CWE.

CAPEC-664: Server Side Request Forgery

An adversary exploits improper input validation by submitting maliciously crafted input to a target application running on a server, with the goal of forcing the server to make a request either to itself, to web services running in the server’s internal network, or to external third parties. If successful, the adversary’s request will be made with the server’s privilege level, bypassing its authentication controls. This ultimately allows the adversary to access sensitive data, execute commands on the server’s network, and make external requests with the stolen identity of the server. Server Side Request Forgery attacks differ from Cross Site Request Forgery attacks in that they target the server itself, whereas CSRF attacks exploit an insecure user authentication mechanism to perform unauthorized actions on the user's behalf.

← Back to the CWE list