GHSA-WM69-2PC3-RMMF

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-18 17:25 – Updated: 2026-06-18 17:25
VLAI
Summary
Crawl4AI: Unauthenticated SSRF on the Docker server streaming crawl path (/crawl/stream)
Details

Summary

The Docker API server applied its SSRF destination check (validate_url_destination) on the non-streaming /crawl path but not on the streaming path. handle_stream_crawl_request passed seed URLs straight to the crawler with no destination validation. A remote, unauthenticated client could call POST /crawl/stream (or POST /crawl with crawler_config.stream=true, which short-circuits to the same handler) with a URL pointing at an internal, private, or link-local address; the server fetched it and streamed the response body back. The Docker API is unauthenticated by default.

Affected paths

POST /crawl/stream, and POST /crawl with crawler_config.stream=true (both route to handle_stream_crawl_request, deploy/docker/api.py).

Impact

Unauthenticated read server-side request forgery: an attacker reads internal-only services and cloud-metadata endpoints (e.g. http://169.254.169.254/ for IAM credentials), with the response body streamed back. This is the same class and severity as the project's prior "SSRF via Direct Crawl Endpoints" advisory; /crawl/stream is part of that endpoint family and was never covered by the destination check.

Fix

handle_stream_crawl_request now validates every seed URL's destination with the same global-routability check as handle_crawl_request, before any fetch. The SSRF regression test was hardened to assert per-handler coverage (including the streaming handler) rather than a bare occurrence count, which previously let this gap pass.

Workarounds

  • Upgrade to the patched version (0.9.0).
  • Enable authentication and restrict who can reach the API (note: this does not constrain which URL the API fetches).
  • Restrict the container's outbound network access (egress firewall / no metadata route).

Credits

KOH Jun Sheng - reported the streaming-path SSRF with a runnable PoC and noted the count-based regression test that masked it, plus the shared root cause with redirect/deep-crawl link following.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.8.9"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "crawl4ai"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.9.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-918"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-18T17:25:50Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Summary\n\nThe Docker API server applied its SSRF destination check (`validate_url_destination`) on the non-streaming `/crawl` path but not on the streaming path. `handle_stream_crawl_request` passed seed URLs straight to the crawler with no destination validation. A remote, unauthenticated client could call `POST /crawl/stream` (or `POST /crawl` with `crawler_config.stream=true`, which short-circuits to the same handler) with a URL pointing at an internal, private, or link-local address; the server fetched it and streamed the response body back. The Docker API is unauthenticated by default.\n\n### Affected paths\n\n`POST /crawl/stream`, and `POST /crawl` with `crawler_config.stream=true` (both route to `handle_stream_crawl_request`, `deploy/docker/api.py`).\n\n### Impact\n\nUnauthenticated read server-side request forgery: an attacker reads internal-only services and cloud-metadata endpoints (e.g. `http://169.254.169.254/` for IAM credentials), with the response body streamed back. This is the same class and severity as the project\u0027s prior \"SSRF via Direct Crawl Endpoints\" advisory; `/crawl/stream` is part of that endpoint family and was never covered by the destination check.\n\n### Fix\n\n`handle_stream_crawl_request` now validates every seed URL\u0027s destination with the same global-routability check as `handle_crawl_request`, before any fetch. The SSRF regression test was hardened to assert per-handler coverage (including the streaming handler) rather than a bare occurrence count, which previously let this gap pass.\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- Upgrade to the patched version (0.9.0).\n- Enable authentication and restrict who can reach the API (note: this does not constrain which URL the API fetches).\n- Restrict the container\u0027s outbound network access (egress firewall / no metadata route).\n\n### Credits\n\nKOH Jun Sheng - reported the streaming-path SSRF with a runnable PoC and noted the count-based regression test that masked it, plus the shared root cause with redirect/deep-crawl link following.",
  "id": "GHSA-wm69-2pc3-rmmf",
  "modified": "2026-06-18T17:25:50Z",
  "published": "2026-06-18T17:25:50Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/unclecode/crawl4ai/security/advisories/GHSA-wm69-2pc3-rmmf"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/unclecode/crawl4ai"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Crawl4AI: Unauthenticated SSRF on the Docker server streaming crawl path (/crawl/stream)"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

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.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…