CWE-918
AllowedServer-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Abstraction: Base · Status: Incomplete
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.
4714 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-P998-JP59-783M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-01 21:26 – Updated: 2026-04-06 16:47Summary
On Windows the static resource handler may expose information about a NTLMv2 remote path.
Impact
If an application is running on Windows, and using aiohttp's static resource handler (not recommended in production), then it may be possible for an attacker to extract the hash from an NTLMv2 path and then extract the user's credentials from there.
Patch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/0ae2aa076c84573df83fc1fdc39eec0f5862fe3d
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.13.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "aiohttp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.13.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34515"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-36",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-01T21:26:36Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-01T21:16:59Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nOn Windows the static resource handler may expose information about a NTLMv2 remote path.\n\n### Impact\n\nIf an application is running on Windows, and using aiohttp\u0027s static resource handler (not recommended in production), then it may be possible for an attacker to extract the hash from an NTLMv2 path and then extract the user\u0027s credentials from there.\n\n-----\n\nPatch: https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/0ae2aa076c84573df83fc1fdc39eec0f5862fe3d",
"id": "GHSA-p998-jp59-783m",
"modified": "2026-04-06T16:47:09Z",
"published": "2026-04-01T21:26:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/security/advisories/GHSA-p998-jp59-783m"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/commit/0ae2aa076c84573df83fc1fdc39eec0f5862fe3d"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/releases/tag/v3.13.4"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "AIOHTTP affected by UNC SSRF/NTLMv2 Credential Theft/Local File Read in static resource handler on Windows"
}
GHSA-P99V-5W3C-JQQ9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-06-10 17:21 – Updated: 2024-09-20 15:46In Django 2.2 before 2.2.24, 3.x before 3.1.12, and 3.2 before 3.2.4, URLValidator, validate_ipv4_address, and validate_ipv46_address do not prohibit leading zero characters in octal literals. This may allow a bypass of access control that is based on IP addresses. (validate_ipv4_address and validate_ipv46_address are unaffected with Python 3.9.5+..) .
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.2a1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.2.24"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0a1"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.12"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "Django"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.2a1"
},
{
"fixed": "3.2.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-33571"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-06-10T14:42:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-06-08T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In Django 2.2 before 2.2.24, 3.x before 3.1.12, and 3.2 before 3.2.4, URLValidator, validate_ipv4_address, and validate_ipv46_address do not prohibit leading zero characters in octal literals. This may allow a bypass of access control that is based on IP addresses. (validate_ipv4_address and validate_ipv46_address are unaffected with Python 3.9.5+..) .",
"id": "GHSA-p99v-5w3c-jqq9",
"modified": "2024-09-20T15:46:25Z",
"published": "2021-06-10T17:21:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-33571"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/203d4ab9ebcd72fc4d6eb7398e66ed9e474e118e"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/9f75e2e562fa0c0482f3dde6fc7399a9070b4a3d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django/commit/f27c38ab5d90f68c9dd60cabef248a570c0be8fc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.2/releases/security"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-p99v-5w3c-jqq9"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/django/django"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/django/PYSEC-2021-99.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://groups.google.com/g/django-announce/c/sPyjSKMi8Eo"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/B4SQG2EAF4WCI2SLRL6XRDJ3RPK3ZRDV"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/B4SQG2EAF4WCI2SLRL6XRDJ3RPK3ZRDV"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20210727-0004"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2021/jun/02/security-releases"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Django Access Control Bypass possibly leading to SSRF, RFI, and LFI attacks "
}
GHSA-P9CG-VQCC-GRCX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-05 20:07 – Updated: 2024-11-18 16:26Summary
At present, when Fedify needs to retrieve an object or activity from a remote activitypub server, it makes a HTTP request to the @id or other resources present within the activity it has received from the web. This activity could reference an @id that points to an internal IP address, allowing an attacker to send request to resources internal to the fedify server's network.
This applies to not just resolution of documents containing activities or objects, but also to media URLs as well.
Specifically this is a Server Side Request Forgery attack. You can learn more about SSRF attacks via CWE-918
Details
When Fedify makes a request at runtime via the DocLoader [1] [2], the fetch API does not first check the URI's to assert that it resolve to a public IP address. Additionally, any downstream software of Fedify that may fetch data from URIs contained within Activities or Objects maybe be at risk of requesting non-public resources, and storing those, exposing non-public information to the public.
Additionally, in many cases the URIs are not asserted to be either strictly HTTPS or HTTP protocols, which could lead to further attacks, and there is no check that the URI contains a hostname part. Whilst the fetch() specification may provide some safety here, along with underlying fetch implementations, there is still potential for attacks through using data: URIs, or just attacking some other protocol entirely, e.g., FTP or CalDav.
[1] https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/blob/main/runtime/docloader.ts#L141 [2] https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/blob/main/runtime/docloader.ts#L175
Deno-specific Attack Vectors
In Deno specifically, the fetch() API allows accessing local filesystem, I'm not sure how Deno's Permissions model may prevent attacks utilising file: URIs.
Fetch also supports fetching from file URLs to retrieve static files. For more info on static files, see the filesystem API documentation.
ActivityPub Security Considerations
This is also noted in the ActivityPub spec in Section B.3 Security Considerations, however, there it is more limited in scope.
Other Implementations
It may be acceptable to allow a server operator to allow access to given non-public IP addresses, for instance in Mastodon they allow requests to non-public IP addresses, i.e., localhost in development and those in the ALLOWED_PRIVATE_ADDRESSES environment variable.
PoC
I'm not sure a PoC is necessary given this is a reasonably well known vulnerability vector.
Impact
This impacts server operates, as resources that are internal to their network may find themselves being improperly accessed or potentially even attacked or exposed to the public.
Notes for resolution:
When implementing public IP address validation, be careful of CWE-1389 and CWE-1286 both of which recently caused a CVE to be filed against the popular node.js ip package, although this package was not originally intended for security purposes.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@fedify/fedify"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.9.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@fedify/fedify"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.10.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@fedify/fedify"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.11.0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.11.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39687"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-07-05T20:07:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-05T18:15:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n \nAt present, when Fedify needs to retrieve an object or activity from a remote activitypub server, it makes a HTTP request to the `@id` or other resources present within the activity it has received from the web. This activity could reference an `@id` that points to an internal IP address, allowing an attacker to send request to resources internal to the fedify server\u0027s network.\n\nThis applies to not just resolution of documents containing activities or objects, but also to media URLs as well.\n\nSpecifically this is a [Server Side Request Forgery attack](https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/Server_Side_Request_Forgery). You can learn more about SSRF attacks via [CWE-918](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/918.html)\n\n### Details\n\nWhen Fedify makes a request at runtime via the DocLoader [1] [2], the `fetch` API does not first check the URI\u0027s to assert that it resolve to a public IP address. Additionally, any downstream software of Fedify that may fetch data from URIs contained within Activities or Objects maybe be at risk of requesting non-public resources, and storing those, exposing non-public information to the public.\n\nAdditionally, in many cases the URIs are not asserted to be either strictly HTTPS or HTTP protocols, which could lead to further attacks, and there is no check that the URI contains a `hostname` part. Whilst the [`fetch()` specification](https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/) may provide some safety here, along with underlying fetch implementations, there is still potential for attacks through using `data:` URIs, or just attacking some other protocol entirely, e.g., FTP or CalDav.\n\n[1] https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/blob/main/runtime/docloader.ts#L141\n[2] https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/blob/main/runtime/docloader.ts#L175\n\n#### Deno-specific Attack Vectors\n\nIn Deno specifically, the `fetch()` API allows [accessing local filesystem](https://docs.deno.com/deploy/api/runtime-fetch/), I\u0027m not sure how Deno\u0027s [Permissions model](https://docs.deno.com/runtime/manual/runtime/permission_apis/) may prevent attacks utilising `file:` URIs.\n \n\u003e Fetch also supports fetching from file URLs to retrieve static files. For more info on static files, see the [filesystem API documentation](https://docs.deno.com/deploy/api/runtime-fs).\n\n#### ActivityPub Security Considerations\n\nThis is also noted in the ActivityPub spec in [Section B.3 Security Considerations](https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#security-localhost), however, there it is more limited in scope.\n\n#### Other Implementations\n\nIt may be acceptable to allow a server operator to allow access to given non-public IP addresses, for instance [in Mastodon](https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/blob/092bb8a27af9ee87ff9ebabaf354477470ea3a94/app/lib/request.rb#L330) they allow requests to non-public IP addresses, i.e., localhost in development and those in the `ALLOWED_PRIVATE_ADDRESSES` environment variable.\n\n### PoC\n\nI\u0027m not sure a PoC is necessary given this is a reasonably well known vulnerability vector.\n\n### Impact\n\nThis impacts server operates, as resources that are internal to their network may find themselves being improperly accessed or potentially even attacked or exposed to the public.\n\n### Notes for resolution:\n\nWhen implementing public IP address validation, be careful of [CWE-1389](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1389.html) and [CWE-1286](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1286.html) both of which [recently](https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-78xj-cgh5-2h22) caused a CVE to be filed against the popular node.js `ip` package, although this package was not originally intended for security purposes.",
"id": "GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx",
"modified": "2024-11-18T16:26:49Z",
"published": "2024-07-05T20:07:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/security/advisories/GHSA-p9cg-vqcc-grcx"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39687"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/commit/30f9cf4a175704a04c874f3ea88414c5f1e00b28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/commit/c641e976089dd913f649889c1bfb016df04e86ba"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/dahlia/fedify"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/dahlia/fedify/releases/tag/0.11.1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:L/SI:N/SA:L",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attack in Fedify"
}
GHSA-P9F7-3XG3-4MR6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-07 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:35Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Iulia Cazan Easy Replace Image allows Server Side Request Forgery. This issue affects Easy Replace Image: from n/a through 3.5.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-47483"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-07T15:16:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Iulia Cazan Easy Replace Image allows Server Side Request Forgery. This issue affects Easy Replace Image: from n/a through 3.5.0.",
"id": "GHSA-p9f7-3xg3-4mr6",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:35:02Z",
"published": "2025-05-07T15:31:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47483"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/easy-replace-image/vulnerability/wordpress-easy-replace-image-3-5-0-server-side-request-forgery-ssrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P9FF-J98V-P435
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-20 21:31 – Updated: 2024-10-04 23:33Strapi 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.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@strapi/strapi"
},
"versions": [
"4.24.4"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-37818"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-10-04T23:33:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-20T19:15:50Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "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.",
"id": "GHSA-p9ff-j98v-p435",
"modified": "2024-10-04T23:33:29Z",
"published": "2024-06-20T21:31:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-37818"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/strapi/strapi"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/%40barkadevaibhav491/server-side-request-forgery-in-strapi-e02d5fe218ab"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://strapi.io"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Strapi Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)"
}
GHSA-P9QX-7MFF-GW6F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-19 06:30 – Updated: 2024-06-19 06:30The 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 web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-5021"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-19T04:15:13Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "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 \u0027file_get_contents\u0027 function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services.",
"id": "GHSA-p9qx-7mff-gw6f",
"modified": "2024-06-19T06:30:35Z",
"published": "2024-06-19T06:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-5021"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/nimble-portfolio/trunk/includes/prettyphoto/download-image.php#L17"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/224a2d6d-7fdc-43a8-a8c9-26213b604433?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PC6F-259W-W3J6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-04 00:00 – Updated: 2024-09-27 21:17A Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in the Data Import module in Heartex - Label Studio Community Edition versions 1.5.0 and earlier allows an authenticated user to access arbitrary files on the system. Furthermore, self-registration is enabled by default in these versions of Label Studio enabling a remote attacker to create a new account and then exploit the SSRF. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.0.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "label-studio"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.6.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-36551"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-04T21:57:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-10-03T12:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in the Data Import module in Heartex - Label Studio Community Edition versions 1.5.0 and earlier allows an authenticated user to access arbitrary files on the system. Furthermore, self-registration is enabled by default in these versions of Label Studio enabling a remote attacker to create a new account and then exploit the SSRF. This issue is fixed in version 1.6.0.",
"id": "GHSA-pc6f-259w-w3j6",
"modified": "2024-09-27T21:17:52Z",
"published": "2022-10-04T00:00:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-36551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio/pull/2840"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio/commit/501142cb815ac964b0c600c491885b67386870c2"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/heartexlabs/label-studio/releases/tag/1.6.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/label-studio/PYSEC-2022-300.yaml"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://heartex.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://labelstud.io"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/171548/Label-Studio-1.5.0-Server-Side-Request-Forgery.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Heartex - Label Studio Community Edition vulnerable to SSRF in the Data Import module"
}
GHSA-PC74-V89M-R259
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-05 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in aitool Ai Auto Tool Content Writing Assistant (Gemini Writer, ChatGPT ) All in One allows Server Side Request Forgery. This issue affects Ai Auto Tool Content Writing Assistant (Gemini Writer, ChatGPT ) All in One: from n/a through 2.2.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-58829"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-05T14:15:55Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in aitool Ai Auto Tool Content Writing Assistant (Gemini Writer, ChatGPT ) All in One allows Server Side Request Forgery. This issue affects Ai Auto Tool Content Writing Assistant (Gemini Writer, ChatGPT ) All in One: from n/a through 2.2.6.",
"id": "GHSA-pc74-v89m-r259",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:05Z",
"published": "2025-09-05T15:31:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58829"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/ai-auto-tool/vulnerability/wordpress-ai-auto-tool-content-writing-assistant-gemini-writer-chatgpt-all-in-one-plugin-2-2-6-server-side-request-forgery-ssrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PC7X-R4C4-7QQW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-20 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-29 00:00In Recipes, versions 0.9.1 through 1.2.5 are vulnerable to Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF), in the “Import Recipe” functionality. When an attacker enters the localhost URL, a low privileged attacker can access/read the internal file system to access sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23071"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-19T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Recipes, versions 0.9.1 through 1.2.5 are vulnerable to Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF), in the \u201cImport Recipe\u201d functionality. When an attacker enters the localhost URL, a low privileged attacker can access/read the internal file system to access sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-pc7x-r4c4-7qqw",
"modified": "2022-06-29T00:00:28Z",
"published": "2022-06-20T00:00:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23071"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/TandoorRecipes/recipes/commit/d48fe26a3529cc1ee903ffb2758dfd8f7efaba8c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mend.io/vulnerability-database/CVE-2022-23071"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-PCRP-7G2P-Q7PJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-07 18:31 – Updated: 2024-11-07 21:31An issue was discovered in Logpoint before 7.5.0. Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) on SOAR can be used to leak Logpoint's API Token leading to authentication bypass.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48951"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-07T17:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Logpoint before 7.5.0. Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) on SOAR can be used to leak Logpoint\u0027s API Token leading to authentication bypass.",
"id": "GHSA-pcrp-7g2p-q7pj",
"modified": "2024-11-07T21:31:43Z",
"published": "2024-11-07T18:31:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48951"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.logpoint.com/docs/whats-new-in-logpoint/en/latest"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://servicedesk.logpoint.com/hc/en-us/articles/21968916591261-Server-Side-Request-Forgery-SSRF-on-SOAR-results-in-authentication-bypass"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://servicedesk.logpoint.com/hc/en-us/sections/7201103730845-Product-Security"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-664: Server Side Request Forgery
An adversary exploits improper input validation by submitting maliciously crafted input to a target application running on a server, with the goal of forcing the server to make a request either to itself, to web services running in the server’s internal network, or to external third parties. If successful, the adversary’s request will be made with the server’s privilege level, bypassing its authentication controls. This ultimately allows the adversary to access sensitive data, execute commands on the server’s network, and make external requests with the stolen identity of the server. Server Side Request Forgery attacks differ from Cross Site Request Forgery attacks in that they target the server itself, whereas CSRF attacks exploit an insecure user authentication mechanism to perform unauthorized actions on the user's behalf.