| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Broken Link Notifier plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.0 via the ajax_blinks() function which ultimately calls the check_url_status_code() 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. |
| 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 server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks via a crafted image. |
| The Block For Mailchimp – Easy Mailchimp Form Integration plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Blind Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.12 via the mcbSubmit_Form_Data(). 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. |
| PinchTab is a standalone HTTP server that gives AI agents direct control over a Chrome browser. PinchTab v0.8.3 contains a server-side request forgery issue in the optional scheduler's webhook delivery path. When a task is submitted to `POST /tasks` with a user-controlled `callbackUrl`, the v0.8.3 scheduler sends an outbound HTTP `POST` to that URL when the task reaches a terminal state. In that release, the webhook path validated only the URL scheme and did not reject loopback, private, link-local, or other non-public destinations. Because the v0.8.3 implementation also used the default HTTP client behavior, redirects were followed and the destination was not pinned to validated IPs. This allowed blind SSRF from the PinchTab server to attacker-chosen HTTP(S) targets reachable from the server. This issue is narrower than a general unauthenticated internet-facing SSRF. The scheduler is optional and off by default, and in token-protected deployments the attacker must already be able to submit tasks using the server's master API token. In PinchTab's intended deployment model, that token represents administrative control rather than a low-privilege role. Tokenless deployments lower the barrier further, but that is a separate insecure configuration state rather than impact created by the webhook bug itself. PinchTab's default deployment model is local-first and user-controlled, with loopback bind and token-based access in the recommended setup. That lowers practical risk in default use, even though it does not remove the underlying webhook issue when the scheduler is enabled and reachable. This was addressed in v0.8.4 by validating callback targets before dispatch, rejecting non-public IP ranges, pinning delivery to validated IPs, disabling redirect following, and validating `callbackUrl` during task submission. |
| The Popup builder with Gamification, Multi-Step Popups, Page-Level Targeting, and WooCommerce Triggers plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.4. This is due to insufficient validation on the URLs supplied via the URL parameter. 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, as well as conduct network reconnaissance. The vulnerability was partially patched in version 2.1.4. |
| The Element Pack Addons for Elementor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Blind Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 8.2.5 via the wp_ajax_import_elementor_template action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services. |
| The WP Migrate Lite – WordPress Migration Made Easy plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Blind Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.7.6 via the wpmdb_flush AJAX action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to obtain information about internal services. |
| The RSS Aggregator by Feedzy – Feed to Post, Autoblogging, News & YouTube Video Feeds Aggregator plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Blind Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.1.1 via the feedzy_lazy_load 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. |
| The Real Cookie Banner: GDPR & ePrivacy Cookie Consent plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.2.4. This is due to insufficient validation on the user-supplied URL in the '/scanner/scan-without-login' REST API endpoint. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services via the `url` parameter. |
| The WPeMatico RSS Feed Fetcher plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.11 via the wpematico_test_feed() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services. |
| The Icon List Block – Add Icon-Based Lists with Custom Styles plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.1 via the fs_api_request function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services. Only valid JSON objects are rendered in the response. |
| The Responsive Lightbox & Gallery plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.3 via the 'get_image_size_by_url' function. This is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied URLs when determining image dimensions for gallery items. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Author-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application which can be used to query and modify information from internal services. |
| The Printful Integration for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.11 via the advanced size chart REST API endpoint. This is due to insufficient validation of user-supplied URLs before passing them to the download_url() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application which can be used to query and modify information from internal services. |
| The URL Media Uploader plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0 via the 'url_media_uploader_url_upload' action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with author-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services. |
| The Featured Image Plus – Quick & Bulk Edit with Unsplash plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.6.6 via the fip_get_image_options() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services. |
| The WP Shortcodes Plugin — Shortcodes Ultimate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 7.4.5 via the su_shortcode_csv_table function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Administrator-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services. If the 'Unsafe features' option is explicitly enabled by an administrator, this issue becomes exploitable by Contributor+ attackers |
| EspoCRM is an open source customer relationship management application. Versions 9.3.3 and below have an authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that allows bypassing the internal-host validation logic by using alternative IPv4 representations such as octal notation (e.g., 0177.0.0.1 instead of 127.0.0.1). This is caused by HostCheck::isNotInternalHost() function relying on PHP's filter_var(..., FILTER_VALIDATE_IP), which does not recognize alternative IP formats, causing the validation to fall through to a DNS lookup that returns no records and incorrectly treats the host as safe, however the cURL subsequently normalizes the address and connects to the loopback destination. Through the confirmed /api/v1/Attachment/fromImageUrl endpoint, an authenticated user can force the server to make requests to loopback-only services and store the fetched response as an attachment. This vulnerability is distinct from CVE-2023-46736 (which involved redirect-based SSRF) and may allow access to internal resources reachable from the application runtime. This issue has been fixed in version 9.3.4. |
| EspoCRM is an open source customer relationship management application. In versions 9.3.3 and below, the POST /api/v1/Attachment/fromImageUrl endpoint is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via a DNS rebinding (TOCTOU) condition. Host validation uses dns_get_record() but the actual HTTP request resolves hostnames through curl's internal resolver (gethostbyname()), allowing the two lookups to return different IP addresses for the same hostname. A secondary issue exists where an empty DNS result (due to DNS failure, IPv6-only domains, or non-existent hostnames) causes the validation to implicitly allow the host without further checks. An authenticated attacker with default attachment creation access can exploit this gap to bypass internal IP restrictions and scan internal network ports, confirm the existence of internal hosts, and interact with internal HTTP-based services, though data extraction from binary protocol services and remote code execution are not possible through this endpoint. This issue has been fixed in version 9.3.4. |
| LoLLMs WEBUI provides the Web user interface for Lord of Large Language and Multi modal Systems. A critical Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability has been identified in all known existing versions of `lollms-webui`. The `@router.post("/api/proxy")` endpoint allows unauthenticated attackers to force the server into making arbitrary GET requests. This can be exploited to access internal services, scan local networks, or exfiltrate sensitive cloud metadata (e.g., AWS/GCP IAM tokens). As of time of publication, no known patched versions are available. |
| Open WebUI is a self-hosted artificial intelligence platform designed to operate entirely offline. Versions 0.7.2 and below contain a Blind Server Side Request Forgery in the functionality that allows editing an image via a prompt. The affected function performs a GET request to a user-provided URL with no restriction on the domain, allowing the local address space to be accessed. Since the SSRF is blind (the response cannot be read), the primary impact is port scanning of the local network, as whether a port is open can be determined based on whether the GET request succeeds or fails. These response differentials can be automated to iterate through the entire port range and identify open ports. If the service running on an open port can be inferred, an attacker may be able to interact with it in a meaningful way, provided the service offers state-changing GET request endpoints. This issue was unresolved at the time of publication. |
