Weakness (CWE)
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery
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.
How to prevent it (3 mitigations)
-
Implementation, Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation [REF-1511].
-
Implementation, Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation [REF-1511].
-
Implementation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
When constructing outgoing requests from input strings, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. This will indirectly limit the scope of an attack, but this technique is less important than proper output encoding and escaping.
Source: MITRE CWE-918
1,873 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
Medium 4.9
WordPress Magical Addons For Elementor plugin <= 1.1.41 - Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Noor alam Magical Addons For Elementor.This issue affects Magical Addons For Elementor: from n/a through 1.1.41.
-
Medium 4.9
WordPress WappPress plugin <= 6.0.4 - Blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in WappPress Team WappPress.This issue affects WappPress: from n/a through 6.0.4.
-
Medium 6.2
HCL BigFix Compliance is affected by an internal server error
HCL BigFix Compliance server can respond with an HTTP status of 500, indicating a server-side error that may cause the server process to die.
-
Medium 5.4
There is an SSRF vulnerability in the Fluid Topics platform that affects versions prior to 4.3, where the server can be…
-
Medium 5.1
Symantec Privileged Access Manager Privilege Escalation vulnerability
The vulnerability allows a malicious low-privileged PAM user to perform server upgrade related actions.
-
Medium 5.4
IBM Datacap Navigator server-side request forgery
IBM Datacap Navigator 9.1.5, 9.1.6, 9.1.7, 9.1.8, and 9.1.9 is vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF). This may allow an authenticated attacker to send unauthorized requests from the system, potentially leading to network enumeration or facilitating…
-
Medium 6.4
PublicCMS v4.0.202302.e was discovered to contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via the component /admin/ueditor…
-
Medium 5.0
[CVE-2024-37171] Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in SAP Transportation Management (Collaboration Portal)
SAP Transportation Management (Collaboration Portal) allows an attacker with non-administrative privileges to send a crafted request from a vulnerable web application. This will trigger the application handler to send a request to an unintended service, which…
-
Medium 5.0
[CVE-2024-34689] Server-Side Request Forgery in SAP Business Workflow (WebFlow Services)
WebFlow Services of SAP Business Workflow allows an authenticated attacker to enumerate accessible HTTP endpoints in the internal network by specially crafting HTTP requests. On successful exploitation this can result in information disclosure. It has no impa…
-
Medium 5.0
[Multiple CVEs] Multiple vulnerabilities in SAP CRM (WebClient UI)
SAP CRM (WebClient UI Framework) allows an authenticated attacker to enumerate accessible HTTP endpoints in the internal network by specially crafting HTTP requests. On successful exploitation this can result in information disclosure. It has no impact on int…
-
Medium 5.0
Directus has a Blind SSRF On File Import
Directus is a real-time API and App dashboard for managing SQL database content. There was already a reported SSRF vulnerability via file import. It was fixed by resolving all DNS names and checking if the requested IP is an internal IP address. However it is…
-
Medium 4.3
IBM Cloud Pak for Business Automation server-side request forgery
IBM Cloud Pak for Business Automation 18.0.0, 18.0.1, 18.0.2, 19.0.1, 19.0.2, 19.0.3, 20.0.1, 20.0.2, 20.0.3, 21.0.1, 21.0.2, 21.0.3, 22.0.1, 22.0.2, 23.0.1, and 23.0.2 vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF). This may allow an authenticated attacker…
-
Medium 5.8
SSRF and Partial LFI in /models/apply Endpoint in mudler/localai
A vulnerability in the /models/apply endpoint of mudler/localai versions 2.15.0 allows for Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) and partial Local File Inclusion (LFI). The endpoint supports both http(s):// and file:// schemes, where the latter can lead to LFI. …
-
Medium 4.9
WordPress WP Scraper plugin <= 5.7 - Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Robert Macchi WP Scraper.This issue affects WP Scraper: from n/a through 5.7.
-
Medium 5.5
ShopXO Uploader.php server-side request forgery
A vulnerability was found in ShopXO up to 6.1.0. It has been declared as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file extend/base/Uploader.php. The manipulation of the argument source leads to server-side request forgery. T…
-
Medium 6.4
Discourse vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery via FastImage
Discourse is an open-source discussion platform. Prior to version 3.2.3 on the `stable` branch and version 3.3.0.beta4 on the `beta` and `tests-passed` branches, a malicious actor could get the FastImage library to redirect requests to an internal Discourse I…
-
Medium 5.4
IBM InfoSphere Information Server server-side request forgery
IBM InfoSphere Information Server 11.7 is vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF). This may allow an authenticated attacker to send unauthorized requests from the system, potentially leading to network enumeration or facilitating other attacks. IBM X…
-
Medium 4.4
WordPress BlossomThemes Email Newsletter plugin <= 2.2.6 - Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Blossom Themes BlossomThemes Email Newsletter.This issue affects BlossomThemes Email Newsletter: from n/a through 2.2.6.
-
Medium 6.8
Dell PowerProtect DD, versions prior to 8.0, LTS 7.13.1.0, LTS 7.10.1.30, LTS 7.7.5.40 contain a Server-Side Request Fo…
-
Medium 5.3
Apache XML Security for C++ through 2.0.4 implements the XML Signature Syntax and Processing (XMLDsig) specification wi…
-
Medium 6.9
Adminer and AdminerEvo SSRF
Adminer and AdminerEvo are vulnerable to SSRF via database connection fields. This could allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to enumerate or access systems the attacker would not otherwise have access to. Adminer is no longer supported, but this issue wa…
-
Medium 5.7
API Key Leak in lobe-chat
Lobe Chat is an open-source LLMs/AI chat framework. In affected versions if an attacker can successfully authenticate through SSO/Access Code, they can obtain the real backend API Key by modifying the base URL to their own attack URL on the frontend and setti…
-
Medium 6.5
SSRF in service connector
Adobe Commerce versions 2.4.7, 2.4.6-p5, 2.4.5-p7, 2.4.4-p8 and earlier are affected by a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could lead to arbitrary file system read. A low-privilege authenticated attacker can force the application to make …
-
Medium 6.4
TablePress – Tables in WordPress made easy <= 2.3 - Authenticated (Author+) Server-Side Request Forgery via DNS Rebind
The TablePress – Tables in WordPress made easy plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.3 via the get_files_to_import() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with author-…
-
Medium 4.8CVE-2024-3095 Public exploit
SSRF in Langchain Web Research Retriever in langchain-ai/langchain
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the Web Research Retriever component of langchain-ai/langchain version 0.1.5. The vulnerability arises because the Web Research Retriever does not restrict requests to remote internet addresses, all…
-
Medium 4.8
SSRF In BeyondInsight
Prior to 23.2, it is possible to perform arbitrary Server-Side requests via HTTP-based connectors within BeyondInsight, resulting in a server-side request forgery vulnerability.
-
Medium 4.4
WordPress Blocksy Companion plugin <= 2.0.42 - Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Creative Themes Blocksy Companion blocksy-companion.This issue affects Blocksy Companion: from n/a through <= 2.0.42.
-
Medium 4.4
WordPress Ninja Tables plugin <= 5.0.9 - Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in WPManageNinja LLC Ninja Tables.This issue affects Ninja Tables: from n/a through 5.0.9.
-
Medium 4.4
WordPress Church Admin plugin <= 4.3.6 - Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in andy_moyle Church Admin church-admin.This issue affects Church Admin: from n/a through <= 4.3.6.
-
Medium 6.4
Auto Featured Image (Auto Post Thumbnail) <= 4.1.7 - Authenticated (Author+) Server-Side Request Forgery
The Auto Featured Image (Auto Post Thumbnail) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.1.7 via the upload_to_library AJAX action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with author-…
-
Medium 5.3
WPCafe <= 2.2.23 - Unauthenticated Blind Server-Side Request Forgery
The WPCafe – Restaurant Menu, Online Ordering for WooCommerce, Pickup / Delivery and Table Reservation plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.23 via the wpc_check_for_submission function. Th…
-
Medium 6.1
VuFind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the /Cover/Show route (showAction in CoverController.php) in Open Library Foundation VuFind 2.4 through 9.1 before 9.1.1 allows remote attackers to access internal HTTP servers and perform Cross-Site Scrip…
-
Medium 4.4
Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in a-blog cms Ver.3.1.x series versions prior to Ver.3.1.12 and…
-
Medium 6.4
Cost Calculator Builder Pro <= 3.1.72 - Authenticated (Subscriber+) Server-Side Request Forgery
Cost Calculator Builder Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to 3.1.72, via the send_demo_webhook() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to ma…
-
Medium 5.3
Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in iManager
Server Side Request Forgery vulnerability has been discovered in OpenText™ iManager 3.2.6.0200. This could lead to senstive information disclosure.
-
Medium 5.3
Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in iManager
Server Side Request Forgery vulnerability has been discovered in OpenText™ iManager 3.2.6.0200. This could lead to senstive information disclosure by directory traversal.
-
Medium 5.3
ITPison OMICARD EDM - Server-Side Request Forgery
ITPison OMICARD EDM fails to properly filter specific URL parameter, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to modify the parameters and conduct Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks. This vulnerability enables attackers to probe internal network info…
-
Medium 5.4
WhatsUp Gold Server-Side Request Forgery Information Disclosure Vulnerability via HttpMonitorSettings
In WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2023.1.2 , an SSRF vulnerability exists in Whatsup Gold's Issue exists in the HTTP Monitoring functionality. Due to the lack of proper authorization, any authenticated user can access the HTTP monitoring functionality…
-
Medium 4.2
WhatsUp Gold Server-Side Request Forgery Information Disclosure Vulnerability via FaviconController
In WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2023.1.2 , a blind SSRF vulnerability exists in Whatsup Gold's FaviconController that allows an attacker to send arbitrary HTTP requests on behalf of the vulnerable server.
-
Medium 5.0
The Proofpoint Encryption endpoint of Proofpoint Enterprise Protection contains a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerabi…