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
3,822 results · Feed
-
High 7.3
The W3C XML Signature Syntax and Processing (XMLDsig) specification, starting with 1.0, was originally published with a…
-
High 7.1
WhatsUp Gold SessionControler Server-Side Request Forgery Information Disclosure Vulnerability
In WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2023.1.3, an authenticated SSRF vulnerability in Wug.UI.Areas.Wug.Controllers.SessionControler.Update allows a low privileged user to chain this SSRF with an Improper Access Control vulnerability. This can be used to e…
-
High 7.1
WhatsUp Gold GetASPReport Server-Side Request Forgery Information Disclosure
In WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2023.1.3, a Server Side Request Forgery vulnerability exists in the GetASPReport feature. This allows any authenticated user to retrieve ASP reports from an HTML form.
-
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…
-
High 7.6
A Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that allowed an attacker with th…
-
High 8.6
Strapi Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Strapi v4.24.4 was discovered to contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via the component /strapi.io/_next/image. This vulnerability allows attackers to scan for open ports or access sensitive information via a crafted GET request. NOTE: The Strapi Deve…
-
Critical 9.3
WordPress Picture / Portfolio / Media Gallery <= 3.0.1 - Unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery
The WordPress Picture / Portfolio / Media Gallery plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0.1 via the 'file_get_contents' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to make …
-
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…
-
High 8.5
ElementsKit PRO <= 3.6.1 - Authenticated (Contributor+) Server-Side Request Forgery
The ElementsKit PRO plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 3.6.2 via the 'render_raw' function. This can allow authenticated attackers, with contributor-level permissions and above, to make web requ…
-
High 7.1
CVAT SSRF via custom cloud storage endpoints
Computer Vision Annotation Tool (CVAT) is an interactive video and image annotation tool for computer vision. CVAT allows users to supply custom endpoint URLs for cloud storages based on Amazon S3 and Azure Blob Storage. Starting in version 2.1.0 and prior to…
-
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 …
-
High 7.5
Apache Allura: sensitive information exposure via DNS rebinding
Import functionality is vulnerable to DNS rebinding attacks between verification and processing of the URL. Project administrators can run these imports, which could cause Allura to read from internal services and expose them. This issue affects Apache Allur…
-
High 7.7
SuiteCRM authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery
SuiteCRM is an open-source Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software application. Prior to versions 7.14.4 and 8.6.1, a vulnerability in the connectors file verification allows for a server-side request forgery attack. Versions 7.14.4 and 8.6.1 contain …
-
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-…
-
High 8.6
SSRF Vulnerability in lunary-ai/lunary
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the lunary-ai/lunary application, specifically within the endpoint '/auth/saml/tto/download-idp-xml'. The vulnerability arises due to the application's failure to validate user-supplied URLs before …
-
Critical 9.6
SSRF in mintplex-labs/anything-llm
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the upload link feature of mintplex-labs/anything-llm. This feature, intended for users with manager or admin roles, processes uploaded links through an internal Collector API using a headless brows…
-
High 7.7
SSRF Vulnerability in stangirard/quivr
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the stangirard/quivr application, version 0.0.204, which allows attackers to access internal networks. The vulnerability is present in the crawl endpoint where the 'url' parameter can be manipulated…
-
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…
-
High 8.3
Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in imartinez/privategpt
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the file upload section of imartinez/privategpt version 0.5.0. This vulnerability allows attackers to send crafted requests that could result in unauthorized access to the local network and potentia…
-
High 7.4
SSRF in add_webpage endpoint in parisneo/lollms-webui
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the 'add_webpage' endpoint of the parisneo/lollms-webui application, affecting the latest version. The vulnerability arises because the application does not adequately validate URLs entered by users…
-
High 8.6
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in gradio-app/gradio
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the gradio-app/gradio version 4.21.0, specifically within the `/queue/join` endpoint and the `save_url_to_cache` function. The vulnerability arises when the `path` value, obtained from the user and …
-
High 8.8
Privilege Escalation and Local File Inclusion in mintplex-labs/anything-llm
mintplex-labs/anything-llm is vulnerable to multiple security issues due to improper input validation in several endpoints. An attacker can exploit these vulnerabilities to escalate privileges from a default user role to an admin role, read and delete arbitra…
-
High 7.2
A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Finesse could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker …
-
High 7.7
Grafana OnCall is an easy-to-use on-call management tool that will help reduce toil in on-call management through simpl…
-
High 7.7
SSRF vulnerability in mintplex-labs/anything-llm
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the latest version of mintplex-labs/anything-llm, allowing attackers to bypass the official fix intended to restrict access to intranet IP addresses and protocols. Despite efforts to filter out intr…
-
Critical 9.1CVE-2024-36675 Scanner template
LyLme_spage v1.9.5 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via the get_head function.
-
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-…
-
High 8.1
The file-serving function in TARGIT Decision Suite before 24.06.19002 (TARGIT Decision Suite 2024 – June) allows authen…
-
High 8.1CVE-2024-29415 Public exploit
ip SSRF improper categorization in isPublic
The ip package through 2.0.1 for Node.js might allow SSRF because some IP addresses (such as 127.1, 01200034567, 012.1.2.3, 000:0:0000::01, and ::fFFf:127.0.0.1) are improperly categorized as globally routable via isPublic. NOTE: this issue exists because of …
-
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…
-
Critical 9.1
VuFind Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the /Upgrade/FixConfig route in Open Library Foundation VuFind 2.0 through 9.1 before 9.1.1 allows a remote attacker to overwrite local configuration files to gain access to the administrator panel and ach…
-
High 8.5
MemberPress <= 1.11.29 - Authenticated (Contributor+) Blind Server-Side Request Forgery via mepr-user-file Shortcode
The Memberpress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Blind Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.11.29 via the 'mepr-user-file' shortcode. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and abo…
-
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…
-
High 8.2
WordPress ICS Calendar plugin <= 10.12.0.3 - SSRF and Arbitrary File Read vulnerability
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'), Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Room 34 Creative Services, LLC ICS Calendar ics-calendar allows Absolute Path Traversal, : Server Side Request Forgery.This iss…
-
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…