Total
2645 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-10056 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 4.4 MEDIUM | ||
| The Task Scheduler plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.6.3 via the “Check Website” task. 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. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0584 | 1 Aenrich | 1 A\+hrd | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| The a+HRD from aEnrich Technology has a Server-side Request Forgery, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to exploit this vulnerability to probe internal network. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0539 | 2 Microsoft, Octopus | 2 Windows, Octopus Server | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.8 HIGH |
| In affected Microsoft Windows versions of Octopus Deploy, the server can be coerced into sending server-side requests that contain authentication material allowing a suitably positioned attacker to compromise the account running Octopus Server and potentially the host infrastructure itself. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0480 | 1 Wuzhicms | 1 Wuzhicms | 2026-06-17 | 4.0 MEDIUM | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| A vulnerability classified as problematic has been found in wuzhicms 4.1.0. This affects the function test of the file coreframe/app/search/admin/config.php. The manipulation of the argument sphinxhost/sphinxport leads to server-side request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0474 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.7 HIGH | ||
| Invoice Ninja is vulnerable to authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) allowing for arbitrary file read and network resource requests as the application user. This issue affects Invoice Ninja: from 5.8.56 through 5.11.23. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0454 | 1 Agpt | 1 Autogpt Platform | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability was identified in the Requests utility of significant-gravitas/autogpt versions prior to v0.4.0. The vulnerability arises due to a hostname confusion between the `urlparse` function from the `urllib.parse` library and the `requests` library. A malicious user can exploit this by submitting a specially crafted URL, such as `http://localhost:\@google.com/../`, to bypass the SSRF check and perform an SSRF attack. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0292 | 1 Ivanti | 2 Connect Secure, Policy Secure | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| SSRF in Ivanti Connect Secure before version 22.7R2.8 and Ivanti Policy Secure before version 22.7R1.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin rights to access internal network services. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0188 | 1 Gaizhenbiao | 1 Chuanhuchatgpt | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability was discovered in gaizhenbiao/chuanhuchatgpt version 20240914. The vulnerability allows an attacker to construct a response link by saving the response in a folder named after the SHA-1 hash of the target URL. This enables the attacker to access the response directly, potentially leading to unauthorized access to internal systems, data theft, service disruption, or further attacks such as port scanning and accessing metadata endpoints. | |||||
| CVE-2025-0184 | 1 Langgenius | 1 Dify | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 6.5 MEDIUM |
| A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability was identified in langgenius/dify version 0.10.2. The vulnerability occurs in the 'Create Knowledge' section when uploading DOCX files. If an external relationship exists in the DOCX file, the reltype value is requested as a URL using the 'requests' module instead of the 'ssrf_proxy', leading to an SSRF vulnerability. This issue was fixed in version 0.11.0. | |||||
| CVE-2024-9870 | 1 Gitlab | 1 Gitlab | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 4.3 MEDIUM |
| An external service interaction vulnerability in GitLab EE affecting all versions from 15.11 prior to 17.6.5, 17.7 prior to 17.7.4, and 17.8 prior to 17.8.2 allows an attacker to send requests from the GitLab server to unintended services. | |||||
| CVE-2024-9710 | 1 Posthog | 1 Posthog | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.3 HIGH |
| PostHog database_schema Server-Side Request Forgery Information Disclosure Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of PostHog. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the database_schema method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a URI prior to accessing resources. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the service account. Was ZDI-CAN-25351. | |||||
| CVE-2024-9624 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.6 HIGH | ||
| The WP All Import Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.9.3 due to missing SSRF protection on the pmxi_curl_download 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. On cloud platforms, it might allow attackers to read the Instance metadata. | |||||
| CVE-2024-9410 | 1 Ada | 1 Ada | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 5.3 MEDIUM |
| Ada.cx's Sentry configuration allowed for blind server-side request forgeries (SSRF) through the use of a data scraping endpoint. | |||||
| CVE-2024-9408 | 1 Eclipse | 1 Glassfish | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.8 CRITICAL |
| In Eclipse GlassFish since version 6.2.5 it is possible to perform a Server Side Request Forgery attack in specific endpoints. | |||||
| CVE-2024-9309 | 1 Hliu | 1 Llava | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 9.3 CRITICAL |
| A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the POST /worker_generate_stream API endpoint of the Controller API Server in haotian-liu/llava version v1.2.0 (LLaVA-1.6). This vulnerability allows attackers to exploit the victim Controller API Server's credentials to perform unauthorized web actions or access unauthorized web resources. | |||||
| CVE-2024-8977 | 1 Gitlab | 1 Gitlab | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.2 HIGH |
| An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting from 15.10 prior to 17.2.9, from 17.3 prior to 17.3.5, and from 17.4 prior to 17.4.2. Instances with Product Analytics Dashboard configured and enabled could be vulnerable to SSRF attacks. | |||||
| CVE-2024-8955 | 1 Composio | 1 Composio | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in composiohq/composio version v0.4.4. This vulnerability allows an attacker to read the contents of any file in the system by exploiting the BROWSERTOOL_GOTO_PAGE and BROWSERTOOL_GET_PAGE_DETAILS actions. | |||||
| CVE-2024-8952 | 1 Composio | 1 Composio | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.5 HIGH |
| A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in composiohq/composio version v0.4.2, specifically in the /api/actions/execute/WEBTOOL_SCRAPE_WEBSITE_CONTENT endpoint. This vulnerability allows an attacker to read files, access AWS metadata, and interact with local services on the system. | |||||
| CVE-2024-8635 | 1 Gitlab | 1 Gitlab | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 7.7 HIGH |
| A server-side request forgery issue has been discovered in GitLab EE affecting all versions starting from 16.8 prior to 17.1.7, from 17.2 prior to 17.2.5, and from 17.3 prior to 17.3.2. It was possible for an attacker to make requests to internal resources using a custom Maven Dependency Proxy URL | |||||
| CVE-2024-8099 | 2026-06-17 | N/A | 8.3 HIGH | ||
| A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the latest version of vanna-ai/vanna when using DuckDB as the database. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by submitting crafted SQL queries that leverage DuckDB's default features, such as `read_csv`, `read_csv_auto`, `read_text`, and `read_blob`, to make unauthorized requests to internal or external resources. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, internal systems, and potentially further attacks. | |||||