Skip to main content

Lightdash CVE-2026-72846

| EUVDEUVD-2026-63731 MEDIUM
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (CWE-918)
2026-08-20 disclosure@vulncheck.com GHSA-hw2h-qf3m-2r8v
5.3
CVSS 4.0 · Vendor: vulncheck
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

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

  1. Access
    Authenticate to Lightdash with low-privilege account
  2. Delivery
    Create or modify scheduled delivery webhook
  3. Exploit
    Supply private or metadata URL as webhook target
  4. Execution
    Trigger scheduled delivery execution
  5. Persist
    Server issues unvalidated POST to internal address
  6. Impact
    Distinguish success from failure to map internal network topology

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

Exploitation requires an authenticated Lightdash user account with permission to create or trigger scheduled deliveries - the CVSS PR:L metric confirms that low-privilege access is sufficient and no administrative role is needed. The attacker must be able to supply or modify the webhook URL field for a scheduled delivery using either the Google Chat or Microsoft Teams integration path. No non-default server configuration is required; scheduled delivery is standard Lightdash functionality. Exploitation is inherently blind: the attacker cannot read the HTTP response body returned by the internal target (it is never relayed to the user); failure response bodies are written to server logs only. This means exploitation yields reachability intelligence (reachable vs. unreachable host distinction) and potential log-exposed data rather than direct full-response exfiltration. Impact is further bounded to the network reachability of the Lightdash backend process.

Impact

The CVSS 4.0 score of 5.3 (Medium) is consistent with the bounded exploitation model: PR:L requires an authenticated session, subsequent-system impact is rated SC:L/SI:L, and the Lightdash instance itself incurs no direct confidentiality, integrity, or availability impact (VC/VI/VA all N). Real-world risk is meaningful but conditional - exploitation demands a legitimate account with scheduled delivery permissions, which limits opportunistic mass exploitation. The blind nature of the SSRF further constrains what an attacker can extract: the response body of a successful internal request is not relayed, and failure bodies are written only to server logs. However, cloud-hosted Lightdash deployments face meaningfully elevated risk because the 169.254.169.254 metadata endpoint is reachable from most cloud VMs and can be used to enumerate instance credentials or IAM roles in insufficiently hardened environments. No EPSS data was included in the provided intelligence, and the absence of a KEV entry suggests exploitation has not been observed at measured scale - though teams running Lightdash in cloud environments or collocated with sensitive internal services should treat this as a near-term patch priority rather than a deferred item.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An authenticated Lightdash user with scheduled delivery permissions creates a delivery and sets the webhook URL to an internal address such as http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ or an internal microservice endpoint. When the delivery fires, the Lightdash backend issues an unvalidated POST to that address; by observing whether the server logs a connection failure versus an HTTP-level error, the attacker maps reachable internal services. In cloud environments, reaching the metadata endpoint without error can expose IAM role credentials or user-data payloads, enabling lateral movement. No public proof-of-concept has been identified, but the vulnerability class is well understood and requires only a low-privilege Lightdash session.

This Month Plan within 30 days. Why: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9).
Patch available 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

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

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Aug 20, 2026

Server-Side Request Forgery in Lightdash's scheduled delivery webhook feature allows authenticated users to direct the backend server to issue POST requests to private, loopback, and link-local addresses - including cloud instance metadata endpoints. All deployments running versions prior to 1.146.4 are affected; both the Google Chat and Microsoft Teams webhook delivery paths bypass the existing validatePublicHttpUrl sanitization that is correctly applied elsewhere in the codebase. While the upstream response is never relayed to the attacker, the error-vs-success distinction enables internal network probing and, in cloud-hosted deployments, potential access to instance metadata services. No public exploit code and no CISA KEV listing have been identified at time of analysis.

RemediationAI

Upgrade Lightdash to version 1.146.4, which routes both GoogleChatClient and MicrosoftTeamsClient through the new postSchedulerWebhook function in packages/backend/src/utils/schedulerWebhookValidation, applying URL validation before any fetch call is issued; the release is available at https://github.com/lightdash/lightdash/releases/tag/1.146.4 and the fix commit is c0ba219 per GitHub issue #27313. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, apply egress filtering at the network or cloud security-group level to block outbound connections from the Lightdash backend process to RFC1918 ranges (10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16), the loopback range (127.0.0.0/8), and the link-local metadata range (169.254.0.0/16); note that this may break legitimate internal webhook targets, so inventory existing destinations before applying rules. As an additional control, restrict scheduled delivery creation to a minimal set of trusted users to reduce the exposed attack surface. Further context is available in the VulnCheck advisory at https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/lightdash-scheduled-delivery-webhook-urls-are-not-validated-allowing-server-side-request-forgery.

Affected VersionsENISA

Lightdash 0 <1.146.4

Affected Packages

euvd lightdash fix: 1.146.4

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 1 package in euvd

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

Technical ContextAI · show details

Lightdash is a self-hosted open-source business intelligence platform built on a Node.js/TypeScript backend. The vulnerable paths are packages/backend/src/clients/GoogleChat/GoogleChatClient.ts and packages/backend/src/clients/MicrosoftTeams/MicrosoftTeamsClient.ts, both of which in versions ≤1.146.3 call the Node.js fetch() API directly on the caller-supplied webhook URL with no server-side URL constraint. A sanitization helper, validatePublicHttpUrl, already exists in packages/backend/src/utils/ssrfProtection.ts and is applied to MCP server URLs, but was not wired into either webhook delivery path - a code-path omission rather than an absent capability. CWE-918 (Server-Side Request Forgery) is the root cause class: user-controlled data designating a network request target is not validated before the server acts on it. This permits requests to RFC1918 private ranges, the loopback interface (127.0.0.1/::1), and the 169.254.0.0/16 link-local range that hosts AWS, GCP, and Azure instance metadata endpoints.

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 (vulncheck) PRIMARY 5.3 MEDIUM
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N
vuln.today AI 5.0 MEDIUM

Network-reachable blind SSRF requiring low-privilege auth; scope changes to affect internal/subsequent systems; confidentiality impact limited to network probing and log leakage; no integrity or availability impact on any system.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

Primary rating from Vendor (vulncheck).

CVSS VectorVendor: vulncheck

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Requirements
None
Privileges Required
Low
User Interaction
None
Vulnerable system: Confidentiality
None
Vulnerable system: Integrity
None
Vulnerable system: Availability
None
Subsequent system: Confidentiality
Low
Subsequent system: Integrity
Low
Subsequent system: Availability
None

Lifecycle Timeline

2
Patch available
Aug 20, 2026 - 23:04 EUVD
CVE Published
Aug 20, 2026 - 22:18 cve.org
MEDIUM 5.3

DescriptionCVE.org

Lightdash stores the webhook URL supplied with a scheduled delivery and later posts to it from sendWebhook in packages/backend/src/clients/GoogleChat/GoogleChatClient.ts and in packages/backend/src/clients/MicrosoftTeams/MicrosoftTeamsClient.ts. In affected versions both call fetch on the stored URL directly. The validatePublicHttpUrl helper in packages/backend/src/utils/ssrfProtection.ts, used for MCP server URLs, is not applied on either path, and the webhook fields carry no server-side URL constraint. A user able to create or trigger a scheduled delivery can therefore direct the server to issue POST requests to private, loopback and link-local addresses, including cloud metadata endpoints, and can distinguish reachable internal services from unreachable ones through the resulting errors. The upstream response is never returned to the requester; on a failure status its body is written to the server log instead. Version 1.146.4 routes both clients through postSchedulerWebhook from packages/backend/src/utils/schedulerWebhookValidation rather than calling fetch directly.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 82% exploitable
Prevalence
Low
self-hosted open-source BI tool, niche data-team deployments
Data Quality
6 sources
Confidence: High

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 MEDIUM
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available Yes
Active threat No
Deciding rule
MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9)
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
Scheduled
Exploitation
Poc
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
No
Human Impact· derived
Medium
Technical Impact
Partial

Priority Score

26
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +26
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