| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| IBM DataPower Gateway 10.5.0.0 through 10.5.0.22, 10.6.1 through 10.6.6, 10.6.0.0 through 10.6.0.10, and 11.0.0.0 through 11.0.0.2 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 Financial Transaction Manager (FTM) for RedHat OpenShift could allow a local attacker to obtain sensitive information and trigger unauthorized actions due to server-side request forgery. |
| Docling simplifies document processing by parsing diverse formats and providing integrations with the generative AI ecosystem. From 2.91.0 until 2.132.0, validate_url_safety in docling/backend/utils/image_resource_loader.py validates a hostname with a single IPv4 lookup and then allows the HTTP client to resolve and parse the original URL again, permitting DNS rebinding, mixed public and internal address records, and backslash authority parser disagreement to reach internal services. HTMLBackendOptions(render_page=True) also allows HTTP and HTTPS browser requests without validating their resolved destination. Exploitation requires remote fetching to be enabled, and response content is exposed only when it is decoded as an image or passively rendered in a page screenshot. This issue is fixed in 2.132.0. |
| Penpot is an open-source design and prototyping platform. Prior to 2.18.0, app.util.ssrf/blocked-address? relies on Java InetAddress predicates that do not classify NAT64, 6to4, or Teredo addresses and applies additional CIDR checks only to IPv4 values. Exploitation requires routing through a NAT64 gateway or an attacker-controlled DNS AAAA record; cloud environments with NAT64 gateways are directly exploitable. A user controlling a media import URL, or an administrator controlling a webhook URL, can then supply an IPv6 transition address that embeds a cloud-metadata, loopback, link-local, or private IPv4 target and bypasses the intended SSRF restrictions. Media import can disclose response bodies, while webhook delivery can expose response status as a network-probing side channel. This issue is fixed in version 2.18.0. |
| In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.3, 10.2.7, and 10.0.10, a user that holds a role with the read_o11y_content capability could redirect an outbound request from Splunk App for Splunk Observability Cloud through the Representational State Transfer (REST) API to an attacker-controlled host and disclose the configured Observability Cloud Application Programming Interface (API) token. The vulnerability is possible because Splunk App for Splunk Observability Cloud does not fully validate the destination of an outbound request. For more information see Authentication tokens (https://help.splunk.com/en/splunk-observability-cloud/administer/authentication-and-security/authentication-tokens) in the Splunk documentation.
Splunk Enterprise versions 9.4.x are not affected. |
| Plane is an open-source project management tool. Prior to 1.4.0, the webhook delivery task in apps/api/plane/bgtasks/webhook_task.py calls requests.post() without allow_redirects=False and does not validate redirect targets. validate_url() blocks private, loopback, link-local, and reserved addresses in the original webhook URL, but the final URL reached after one or more redirects is not checked. A user who can create a workspace can register a webhook pointing to an attacker-controlled public endpoint that returns a 302 redirect to an internal address. The Plane worker then fetches internal resources, including cloud metadata, and stores the response body in webhook_logs, where the attacker can retrieve it through the workspace webhook-logs API. This issue is fixed in 1.4.0. |
| Gitea validated a push mirror's remote address against the `[migrations]` allow and block lists only when the mirror was created. Each synchronization passed the stored address directly to `git push`, so a name that later resolved to a blocked or internal address was still reached. A user with administrator access to a repository, which includes repositories they create themselves, could aim push mirror synchronization at internal Git services and force-push the repository's contents to them. |
| Gitea validates a repository migration hostname against its network allow and block lists before invoking Git, but the Git subprocess independently resolves the hostname when connecting. An attacker who can start a migration and control the destination's DNS can change the address between validation and connection to reach a blocked internal address. The affected path is the Git clone operation; validation in the migration HTTP client's dialer does not protect the independently connecting Git subprocess. |
| Gophish 0.11.0 through 0.12.1 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows authenticated low-privileged users to reach loopback and private hosts via POST /api/import/site. Attackers can submit internal URLs, which the default dialer deny list does not block, to read service responses and enumerate internal hosts and ports through error messages. |
| A vulnerability was determined in feelec-yishu feelcrm-os 1.0.0. This affects an unknown part of the file App/Feelcrm/Index/Controller/GoogleController.class.php of the component getCurlData Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument url can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet. |
| Plane is an open-source project management tool. Prior to 1.4.0, the fix for CVE-2026-30242 validates webhook IP addresses only when the webhook is created in apps/api/plane/app/serializers/webhook.py. The delivery task in apps/api/plane/bgtasks/webhook_task.py performs a separate DNS resolution when sending the request and does not validate the resolved IP address, allowing DNS rebinding to bypass the SSRF protection. This issue is fixed in 1.4.0. |
| Gitea validated the initial remote URL for push mirrors, wiki remote checks, and fetches of migrated pull request heads, but the subsequent raw Git operations followed HTTP redirects without revalidating the destination. A repository administrator using a policy-allowed endpoint that redirects could make Gitea's Git client send requests to an address that the outbound host policy would otherwise block. The impact depends on the configured policy and the internal services reachable from the server. |
| Gitea's repository migration and pull mirror egress checks could be bypassed with a hostname that returns multiple DNS answers, because the address that was validated was not necessarily the address Git later connected to. A low-privileged user who can create migrations or mirrors could direct the server to internal services, reading from and writing to reachable internal Git or HTTP endpoints. Content from internal responses could additionally be disclosed through migration and mirror error messages. |
| XStream is a simple library to serialize objects to XML and back again. In affected versions this vulnerability may allow a remote attacker to request data from internal resources that are not publicly available only by manipulating the processed input stream with a Java runtime version 14 to 8. No user is affected, who followed the recommendation to setup XStream's security framework with a whitelist limited to the minimal required types. If you rely on XStream's default blacklist of the [Security Framework](https://x-stream.github.io/security.html#framework), you will have to use at least version 1.4.18. |
| XStream is a simple library to serialize objects to XML and back again. In affected versions this vulnerability may allow a remote attacker to request data from internal resources that are not publicly available only by manipulating the processed input stream with a Java runtime version 14 to 8. No user is affected, who followed the recommendation to setup XStream's security framework with a whitelist limited to the minimal required types. If you rely on XStream's default blacklist of the [Security Framework](https://x-stream.github.io/security.html#framework), you will have to use at least version 1.4.18. |
| PyJWT is a Python implementation of JSON Web Token standards. Prior to 2.14.0, PyJWT PyJWKClient is affected because redirect destinations are not revalidated against the JWKS trust boundary. This occurs when a configured trusted JWKS endpoint returns an attacker-influenced redirect. As a result, PyJWKClient follows the redirect and consumes the redirected response as key material. Consequently, forwarded credentials may be disclosed or verification keys may be substituted. This issue is fixed in version 2.14.0. |
| A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco Finesse could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks through an affected device.
This vulnerability is due to improper input validation for specific HTTP requests. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted HTTP request to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to obtain limited sensitive information for services that are associated with the affected device. |
