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
-
Unscored —
The Github repository importer in Atlassian Bitbucket Server before version 5.3.0 allows remote attackers to determine …
-
Medium 6.5
Moodle SSRF Vulnerability
Moodle 3.x has Server Side Request Forgery in the filepicker.
-
High 7.5
phpBB Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
phpBB version 3.2.0 is vulnerable to SSRF in the Remote Avatar function resulting allowing an attacker to perform port scanning, requesting internal content and potentially attacking such internal services via the web application.
-
Unscored —
Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Link Preview in Synology Chat before 2.0.0-1124 allows remote authe…
-
Critical 9.8
Recurly vulnerable to SSRF
The Recurly Client Python Library before 2.0.5, 2.1.16, 2.2.22, 2.3.1, 2.4.5, 2.5.1, 2.6.2 is vulnerable to a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in the "Resource.get" method that could result in compromise of API keys or other critical resources.
-
Critical 9.8
Recurly gem Server-Side Request Forgery in Resource#find method
The Recurly Client Ruby Library before 2.0.13, 2.1.11, 2.2.5, 2.3.10, 2.4.11, 2.5.4, 2.6.3, 2.7.8, 2.8.2, 2.9.2, 2.10.4, 2.11.3 is vulnerable to a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in the "Resource#find" method that could result in compromise of API k…
-
Critical —
Critical severity vulnerability that affects recurly-api-client
The Recurly Client .NET Library before 1.0.1, 1.1.10, 1.2.8, 1.3.2, 1.4.14, 1.5.3, 1.6.2, 1.7.1, 1.8.1 is vulnerable to a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability due to incorrect use of "Uri.EscapeUriString" that could result in compromise of API keys or ot…
-
Critical 9.8
paperclip Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability
Paperclip ruby gem version 3.1.4 and later suffers from a Server-SIde Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the Paperclip::UriAdapter class. Attackers may be able to access information about internal network resources.
-
Unscored —
Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in file_upload.php in Synology Photo Station before 6.7.4-3433 and 6.3…
-
Unscored —
Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Downloader in Synology Download Station 3.8.x before 3.8.5-3475 and…
-
Unscored —
Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in link preview in Synology Chat before 1.1.0-0806 allows remote authe…
-
High 8.8
phpMyAdmin SSRF in replication
phpMyAdmin 4.0, 4.4 and 4.6 are vulnerable to a weakness where a user with appropriate permissions is able to connect to an arbitrary MySQL server
-
Unscored —
A Server-Side Request Forgery issue was discovered in Belden Hirschmann GECKO Lite Managed switch, Version 2.0.00 and p…
-
High 8.6
jackson-dataformat-xml vulnerable to server side request forgery (SSRF)
XmlMapper in the Jackson XML dataformat component (aka jackson-dataformat-xml) before 2.7.8 and 2.8.x before 2.8.4 allows remote attackers to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks via vectors related to a DTD.
-
Medium 5.8
OpenStack Glance Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
An SSRF issue was discovered in OpenStack Glance before Newton. The 'copy_from' feature in the Image Service API v1 allowed an attacker to perform masked network port scans. With v1, it is possible to create images with a URL such as 'http://localhost:22'. Th…
-
High 7.4
Server Side Request Forgery in svgSalamander
The SVG Salamander (aka svgSalamander) library, when used in a web application, allows remote attackers to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks via an xlink:href attribute in an SVG file.
-
High 7.4
Apache Camel's Validation Component is vulnerable against SSRF via remote DTDs and XXE.
Apache Camel's Validation Component is vulnerable against SSRF via remote DTDs and XXE.
-
High 8.2
Umbraco CMS vulnerable to CSRF
The Page_Load function in Umbraco.Web/umbraco.presentation/umbraco/dashboard/FeedProxy.aspx.cs in Umbraco before 7.4.0 allows remote attackers to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks via the url parameter.
-
High 8.6
phpMyAdmin server-side request forgery (SSRF)
The setup script for phpMyAdmin before 4.0.10.19, 4.4.x before 4.4.15.10, and 4.6.x before 4.6.6 allows remote attackers to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks via unspecified vectors.
-
Medium 5.5
The (1) HTTP and (2) FTP coders in ImageMagick before 6.9.3-10 and 7.x before 7.0.1-1 allow remote attackers to conduct…
KEV Nov 3, 2021 -
Medium —
Apache Ambari SSRF Vulnerability
Server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the proxy endpoint (api/v1/proxy) in Apache Ambari before 2.1.0 allows remote authenticated users to conduct port scans and access unsecured services via a crafted REST call.
-
Medium —
phpThumb is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
The default configuration of phpThumb before 1.7.12 has a false value for the disable_debug option, which allows remote attackers to conduct Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks via the src parameter.
