Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Vvveb is a powerful and easy to use CMS with page builder to build websites, blogs or ecommerce stores. Prior to version 1.0.8.6, Vvveb's SSRF guard resolves a host with an IPv4-only function and never inspects IPv6, so any host that lacks an A record passes a private-range check. Editor oEmbed proxy fetches an attacker-supplied URL server side and reflects a response body, so an authenticated admin-panel user (default role site_admin or higher) can read internal-only services and cloud metadata, including IAM credentials, using an IPv6 literal or a domain that carries only an AAAA record. This issue has been patched in version 1.0.8.6.Show less

Budibase through 3.41.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in AI table generation because the uploadUrl function in packages/server/src/utilities/fileUtils.ts uses raw node-fetch instead of fetchWithBlacklist. Authenticated builder users can send a prompt to POST /api/ai/tables that places an internal URL in an attachment column, causing the server to fetch it and return a presigned object-storage URL containing the response, such as cloud metadata credentials.Show less

Ghost versions from 3.20.2 before 6.51.0 contain a server-side request forgery vulnerability in image dimension refetching that allows authenticated staff users to trigger outbound HTTP requests to arbitrary URLs. Attackers can point image cards at attacker-controlled hosts or internal network endpoints to access metadata services and internal resources unavailable from the public internet.Show less

Ghost versions 1.18.0 before 6.27.0 contain a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the webhooks feature that allows staff users to probe internal hosts. Attackers with staff privileges can craft webhook requests to access internal network resources from the Ghost server.Show less

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in LA-Studio LA-Studio Element Kit for Elementor lastudio-element-kit allows Server Side Request Forgery.This issue affects LA-Studio Element Kit for Elementor: from n/a through 1.6.2.Show less

A flaw has been found in formtools.org Form Tools up to 3.1.1. Impacted is the function smart_fill of the file /global/code/actions.php of the component AJAX Endpoint. This manipulation of the argument url causes server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.Show less

A vulnerability was detected in decolua 9Router up to 0.5.55. The affected element is the function fetch of the file src/shared/utils/ssrfGuard.js of the component Search Endpoint. Performing a manipulation of the argument provider_options.baseUrl results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. Applying a patch is the recommended action to fix this issue.Show less

An authenticated administrator on a node with an optional, separately licensed gateway role enabled could supply a connector URL that the server retrieved without sufficient validation of its scheme or destination, causing the server to issue requests to internal network services. Exploitation requires the licensed gateway role to be active.Show less

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway renders message content that references external resources. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or trigger unintended actions on internal systems.Show less

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway performs an online certificate status check for an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.Show less

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves a certificate revocation list in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.Show less

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.Show less

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery. Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway performed server-side fetches of URLs contained in the message content it processed, without adequately restricting the fetch destination. A remote, unauthenticated sender could craft a message that caused the gateway to issue requests to internal services and cloud instance metadata endpoints and return the responses, potentially disclosing sensitive internal data and, depending on the internal service reached, affecting its state.Show less

Kiteworks Secure Data Forms before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery that could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to make the server issue arbitrary outbound network requests and read back the responses. This could potentially be used to reach internal-only services or other network-restricted resources.Show less

iDocView contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in its /doc/upload endpoint that allows remote unauthenticated attackers to fetch arbitrary URLs by supplying a hardcoded default token value (testtoken) to bypass authentication. Attackers can exploit the unrestricted URL scheme handling, including file:// URIs, to read arbitrary local files such as operating-system and application configuration files, and to reach internal network hosts and services not otherwise accessible. Exploitation evidence was first observed by the Shadowserver Foundation on 2024-03-26.Show less

OpenClaw Windows Node through 2026.9.4 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the canvas.present capability that bypasses URL risk evaluation enforced by canvas.navigate. Attackers with gateway or agent access can issue canvas.present to make the node's WebView send requests to localhost, private networks, or tailnet services from the user's machine.Show less

Tugtainer is a self-hosted app for automating updates of Docker containers. Prior to version 1.30.6, Tugtainer allows an authenticated user to make the backend server send outbound HTTP requests to arbitrary user-supplied URLs through the notification test endpoint. The /settings/test_notification endpoint accepts a urls field and passes it directly to Apprise without restricting protocols, hostnames, localhost addresses, private IP ranges, or cloud metadata addresses. This can be abused as an authenticated blind server-side request forgery (SSRF). This issue has been patched in version 1.30.6.Show less

CloudTAK is a browser-based Common Operating Picture and situational awareness tool compatible with TAK. Prior to version 13.10.0, every route in the ESRI helper family (api/routes/esri.ts) takes a fully attacker-controlled URL from the request (POST /api/esri body url, and the portal / server / layer query parameters on the GET /api/esri/* routes) and passes it into EsriBase / EsriProxyPortal / EsriProxyServer / EsriProxyLayer in api/lib/esri.ts, which fetch it with the bare fetch from @tak-ps/etl. No IP / DNS / hostname classification is applied at any point, so the destination is never validated against private, loopback, or link-local ranges. Any authenticated user (the routes only require Auth.is_auth(config, req, { anyResources: true }), i.e. any token, not an admin) can therefore make the CloudTAK server issue arbitrary outbound GET/POST requests to internal addresses such as the cloud instance-metadata service (169.254.169.254), loopback admin ports (127.0.0.1:<port>), and other hosts reachable only from inside the deployment VPC. This is a full-read SSRF, not blind: on success the upstream JSON body is returned to the caller via res.json(...), and on failure the upstream error string is reflected verbatim as ESRI Server Error: <message>. An attacker can read cloud metadata (and the temporary IAM credentials the instance role exposes), enumerate internal services, and exfiltrate their response bodies. The sniff() URL classifier provides no protection: it only pattern-matches the pathname (/rest, /arcgis/rest, /sharing/rest), so a URL like http://169.254.169.254/arcgis/rest or http://127.0.0.1:8500/rest passes sniff() and is fetched. This issue has been patched in version 13.10.0.Show less