Skip to main content

FUXA CVE-2026-47719

| EUVDEUVD-2026-61208 HIGH
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (CWE-918)
2026-06-08 https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA GHSA-w86f-rf9w-h3x6
8.2
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Recon
    Connect to FUXA Socket.IO port
  2. Delivery
    Receive auto-issued guest token
  3. Exploit
    Emit device-webapi-request with metadata URL
  4. Install
    Server performs axios.get server-side
  5. C2
    io.emit returns response body to attacker
  6. Execute
    Pivot to internal OPC UA/ODBC targets
  7. Impact
    Exfiltrate cloud IAM credentials and OT data

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V4 - API and Web Service URL allowlisting, SSRF prevention
MITRE ATT&CK

2 techniques across 2 tactics: Initial Access, Credential Access

The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up.

Exploitation Conditions

No special conditions - remote unauthenticated exploitation against default configurations of FUXA, including deployments where secureEnabled=true is set, because the Socket.IO connect handler auto-issues a guest token and the DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST and DEVICE_PROPERTY handlers ignore socket.isAuthenticated. The only practical limit is network reachability to the FUXA Socket.IO listener: an attacker must be able to open a websocket to the runtime port, so deployments fronted by a reverse proxy that strips Socket.IO upgrades or restricted to an isolated OT VLAN are not directly reachable from the internet. The blast radius of what the SSRF can hit is bounded by what the FUXA host itself can route to (cloud metadata IP, internal OPC UA/ODBC/HTTP services, admin consoles).

Impact

Signals align toward a real priority for any internet- or untrusted-network-exposed FUXA host: CVSS 8.2 with vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N reflects network reach, low complexity, and no authentication or user interaction; CWE-918 SSRF; and the response body is returned to the attacker, making this a read-SSRF oracle rather than blind. The C:H/I:L/A:N split is justified because the primary impact is data exfiltration (cloud IMDS credentials, internal service responses, ODBC query results) with limited integrity impact via attacker-supplied ODBC credentials and no direct availability hit. EPSS and CISA KEV status are not provided in the input - exploitation probability is therefore unquantified, and there is no public exploit identified at time of analysis. The largest real-world amplifier is deployment context: FUXA frequently runs on OT networks or cloud VMs where the SSRF reaches OPC UA servers, ODBC databases, instance metadata, and admin consoles otherwise unreachable from outside.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker reachable to the FUXA Socket.IO port opens a websocket, lets FUXA auto-issue a guest token, then emits a device-webapi-request event with property.method='GET' and property.address='http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/' against an AWS-hosted FUXA instance; the server performs axios.get and broadcasts the IAM role credentials back over the same event. The attacker pivots to emit device-property events targeting internal OPC UA servers and ODBC databases with attacker-supplied credentials, harvesting plant data and authenticating to backend databases that trust the FUXA host. No public POC is identified at time of analysis, but the advisory includes file paths and event names sufficient to reproduce.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
Patch available 0.1% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Jun 08, 2026

Server-side request forgery in FUXA SCADA/HMI server (npm package fuxa-server <= 1.1.14-1243) allows unauthenticated remote attackers to connect to the Socket.IO endpoint and coerce the server to issue arbitrary HTTP(S), OPC UA, or ODBC requests with response bodies echoed back to the caller. No public exploit identified at time of analysis, but the GitHub Security Advisory GHSA-w86f-rf9w-h3x6 provides full handler-level reproduction details and the fix is shipped in release v1.3.2.

RemediationAI

Vendor-released patch: upgrade to FUXA v1.3.2 (https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA/releases/tag/v1.3.2), whose security notes explicitly list 'Unauthenticated SSRF via Socket.IO (#2344)' as fixed; the advisory at https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA/security/advisories/GHSA-w86f-rf9w-h3x6 is the authoritative reference. If upgrade is delayed, restrict network reach to the Socket.IO listener (typically the same port as the FUXA HTTP server) so only trusted operator subnets can connect - note this breaks any legitimate remote HMI clients. As an in-code workaround, add the existing isSocketWriteAuthorized(socket) check at the top of both DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST and DEVICE_PROPERTY handlers, switch io.emit to socket.emit so responses do not broadcast to every connected client, and validate property.address against a scheme allowlist that rejects private, loopback, link-local, and cloud-metadata ranges (169.254.169.254, fd00::/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16) - this will also block legitimate intranet device polling, so the allowlist must enumerate real device IPs. On cloud deployments, enforce IMDSv2 (or the GCP/Azure equivalent) so a blind GET against the metadata endpoint cannot trivially return credentials.

Affected VersionsENISA

FUXA < 1.3.2

Affected Packages

npm fuxa-server no fix
euvd fuxa fix: 1.3.2

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 2 packages in npm, euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

FUXA is an open-source Node.js-based SCADA/HMI/IoT gateway that exposes a Socket.IO control plane on its runtime server. The root cause is CWE-918 (SSRF): two Socket.IO event handlers - DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST and DEVICE_PROPERTY in server/runtime/index.js - invoke device drivers (axios.get for HTTP, plus OPC UA and ODBC clients) using an attacker-controlled property.address, then broadcast the raw response via io.emit. Unlike sibling write-capable handlers DEVICE_VALUES (line 182) and DEVICE_ENABLE (line 358), these two omit the isSocketWriteAuthorized() gate. The Socket.IO connect block at lines 114-120 also auto-issues a guest token to unauthenticated clients, so enabling secureEnabled=true does not close the gap - the same pattern noted in prior advisory GHSA-vwcg-c828-9822. Affected CPE is pkg:npm/fuxa-server.

Know when the next one hits your stack

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA) PRIMARY 8.2 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

Primary rating from Vendor (https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA) · only source for this CVE.

CVSS VectorVendor: https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Lifecycle Timeline

2
Patch available
Aug 18, 2026 - 22:04 EUVD
CVE Published
Jun 08, 2026 - 23:06 nvd
HIGH 8.2

DescriptionCVE.org

Summary

An unauthenticated attacker (Alice) connects to FUXA's Socket.IO endpoint and emits a device-webapi-request event whose property.address field names an arbitrary URL. FUXA's DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST handler at server/runtime/index.js:296 calls axios.get(address) server-side and broadcasts the full response body back on the same event via io.emit. The companion handler DEVICE_PROPERTY at server/runtime/index.js:153 has the same miss against OPC UA and ODBC endpoints. Both handlers skip the isSocketWriteAuthorized() check that the other write-capable events (DEVICE_VALUES at line 182, DEVICE_ENABLE at line 358) call. Alice reads cloud instance metadata, scans internal services, and connects to any OPC UA server or ODBC database the FUXA host can reach, then receives the results.

Details

Vulnerable handlers: server/runtime/index.js:153-171, 296-316:

javascript
socket.on(Events.IoEventTypes.DEVICE_PROPERTY, (message) => {
    try {
        if (message && message.endpoint && message.type) {
            devices.getSupportedProperty(message.endpoint, message.type).then(result => {
                message.result = result;
                io.emit(Events.IoEventTypes.DEVICE_PROPERTY, message);
            })
            // ...
        }
    }
    // ...
});

socket.on(Events.IoEventTypes.DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST, (message) => {
    try {
        if (message && message.property) {
            devices.getRequestResult(message.property).then(result => {
                message.result = result;
                io.emit(Events.IoEventTypes.DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST, message);
            })
            // ...
        }
    }
    // ...
});

Sink: server/runtime/devices/httprequest/index.js:471 for the webapi path:

javascript
if (property.method === 'GET') {
    axios.get(property.address).then(res => {
        resolve(res.data);
    // ...

Alice fully controls property.address, and io.emit echoes the response body back on the same event. For the ODBC variant, server/runtime/devices/odbc/index.js builds the connection string from endpoint.address plus endpoint.uid and endpoint.pwd, so Alice supplies credentials and targets any reachable ODBC server.

Contrast: server/runtime/index.js:182 (the DEVICE_VALUES write handler) gates the exact same kind of action behind isSocketWriteAuthorized(socket). The two handlers above skip that check.

Reachability: neither handler performs any authorization check, so both modes reach the sinks. secureEnabled=true does not close the gap because the Socket.IO connect block at server/runtime/index.js:114-120 auto-issues a guest token to any client that connects without one, and the handlers run regardless of socket.isAuthenticated. This is the same pattern GHSA-vwcg-c828-9822's note warned about: enabling authentication does not mitigate the missing check here.

Impact

Alice uses FUXA as a read-SSRF oracle against any HTTP(S) service the FUXA host can reach, with the response body delivered back to her Socket.IO session. On cloud-hosted SCADA deployments this exfiltrates IAM credentials from the instance metadata service. On OT networks it reaches internal OPC UA servers, ODBC databases, and administrative consoles that have no other external exposure. The ODBC variant accepts attacker-supplied credentials, so Alice authenticates to any ODBC server that trusts connections from the FUXA host. The attack works against secureEnabled=true deployments as well as the default; no operator interaction required.

CVSS 3.1: AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N (High, 8.2). CWE-918.

Recommended Fix

Add the existing isSocketWriteAuthorized(socket) check at the top of both handlers, matching the pattern used by DEVICE_VALUES and DEVICE_ENABLE. Also switch io.emit to socket.emit so the response scopes to the requesting socket instead of broadcasting to every connected client. For defense in depth, validate property.address against an allowlist of schemes and reject private, loopback, and link-local address ranges before calling axios.get or the device connect paths.

javascript
socket.on(Events.IoEventTypes.DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST, (message) => {
    try {
        if (!isSocketWriteAuthorized(socket)) {
            logger.warn(`${Events.IoEventTypes.DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST}: unauthorized request from ${socket.userId || 'guest'}`);
            return;
        }
        if (message && message.property) {
            // ... validate property.address against allowlist ...
            devices.getRequestResult(message.property).then(result => {
                message.result = result;
                socket.emit(Events.IoEventTypes.DEVICE_WEBAPI_REQUEST, message);
            })
            // ...
        }
    }
    // ...
});

Apply the same three changes (auth check, socket.emit, address validation) to DEVICE_PROPERTY.

--- A fix is available at https://github.com/frangoteam/FUXA/releases/tag/v1.3.2.

--- *Found by aisafe.io*

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

FUXA SCADA/HMI server (fuxa-server versions 1.1.14-1243 and earlier) contains a vulnerability allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to bypass security controls and manipulate the server to access internal systems and resources, with no public exploit identified at time of analysis. This directly impacts organizational security posture for operational technology infrastructure and network isolation. Immediate remediation is required to prevent potential compromise of critical industrial systems.

Business Impact: Severe
Compensating Controls

Apply vendor patch.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.1%
Top 75% exploitable
Threat Intel
1
1 source
Data Quality
5 sources
Confidence: Medium

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity HIGH
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.1%
Patch available Yes
Active threat No
Deciding rule
HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision· derived
Out-of-Cycle
Exploitation· derived
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable· derived
Yes
Human Impact
Very High

Priority Score

41
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +41
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Server-Side Request Forgery exploits applications that fetch remote resources based on user-supplied URLs.

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy