Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessObtain Budibase account with automation permissions
-
DeliveryConfigure attacker-controlled rebinding DNS hostname
-
ExploitCreate webhook/automation step targeting that host
-
ExecutionValidation resolves public IP and passes blacklist
-
PersistSocket re-resolves to internal/metadata IP
-
ImpactRead internal response (IAM creds, internal services) from automation output
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
ASVS 5.0
V15 - Secure Coding and Architecture TOCTOU prevention
|
| Exploitation Conditions | Requires an authenticated Budibase user holding automation permissions (PR:L) and the ability to control authoritative DNS for an attacker-chosen hostname so it resolves to a public IP during blacklist validation and an internal IP during the actual socket connection. Exploitation must route through one of the helpers that use the unpinned outbound fetch - Outgoing Webhook, Slack, Discord, Make, Zapier, n8n, AI extract, or object-store fetches - and is most impactful where those steps echo the upstream response into automation output (non-blind read). Limiting factors: it is not exploitable by unauthenticated outsiders, the attacker must win a TOCTOU DNS race (AC:H), and high-value outcomes depend on deployment specifics - IAM credential theft requires IMDSv2 NOT being enforced, and cross-tenant access requires a shared-internal-infrastructure hosted/multi-tenant deployment. |
| Impact | Signals are mixed and point to a real-but-conditional priority rather than a mass-exploitation emergency. The vendor CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N, 7.1 High) correctly encodes the key frictions: AC:H reflects the timing/DNS-control needed to win the rebinding race, and PR:L confirms authentication is required - the attacker must already hold a Budibase account with automation permissions, so this is not an anonymous internet-facing bug. S:C (scope change) and C:H are justified because the SSRF reaches resources in a different security authority (internal services, IAM credentials via the metadata endpoint). EPSS is low at 0.24% (15th percentile), and the CVE is not in CISA KEV, consistent with no observed widespread exploitation. No SSVC decision record was provided. The countervailing factor is that a working rebinding PoC exists and the technique is well-understood and reliable, so a motivated authenticated insider or an attacker who has phished a low-privilege automation user can realistically execute it. Net assessment: prioritize for any multi-tenant hosted or cloud-deployed Budibase instance (credential-theft and cross-tenant risk are concrete), but the authentication requirement and AC:H meaningfully cap blast radius compared to an unauthenticated RCE. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker with a low-privilege Budibase account that has automation permissions creates an Outgoing Webhook (or Slack/Discord/Make/Zapier/n8n/AI-extract) step pointing at a rebinding hostname they control, such as 7f000001.cb007264.rbndr.us, which alternates between a public IP and 127.0.0.1. When the automation runs, blacklist validation sees the public IP and allows it, but node-fetch's second DNS lookup resolves to the internal address and the socket lands on an internal service; the response body is returned directly into automation output, making the read non-blind. A public PoC demonstrating this against a local listener exists, and AC:H reflects only the modest effort of controlling DNS timing. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv3 – Jun 30, 2026
Server-side request forgery in Budibase (@budibase/backend-core before 3.39.9) lets authenticated users with automation permissions bypass the SSRF blacklist via DNS rebinding, reaching loopback, RFC1918, and cloud metadata endpoints from the Budibase host. The outbound fetch helper validates a hostname's resolved IP against the blacklist but never pins that IP to the subsequent socket, so node-fetch performs a second DNS lookup that can resolve to an internal address. Because several automation steps return upstream response bodies into automation output, the result is a non-blind read primitive; publicly available exploit code (a rebinding PoC) exists, though EPSS is low (0.24%, 15th percentile) and it is not on CISA KEV.
Earlier versions of this analysis (2)
Server-side request forgery in Budibase (self-hosted and cloud, versions before 3.39.9) lets authenticated users holding automation permissions bypass the outbound SSRF blacklist via DNS rebinding, reaching loopback, RFC1918, Kubernetes/VPC, and cloud metadata (169.254.169.254) services from the Budibase host. Because automation steps such as Outgoing Webhook, Slack, Discord, Make, Zapier, n8n, AI extract, and object-store fetch return upstream response bodies into automation output, the primitive is a non-blind read-SSRF that can expose IAM credentials on deployments without IMDSv2. A working proof-of-concept using public rebinding hostnames (rbndr.us) is documented in the vendor advisory; publicly available exploit code exists, though there is no public exploit identified as actively used in the wild and EPSS is low at 0.24% (15th percentile).
Server-side request forgery in Budibase @budibase/backend-core (versions before 3.39.9) allows authenticated users with automation permissions to bypass the SSRF hostname blacklist via DNS rebinding, producing a non-blind read primitive against internal services. The outbound fetch helper validates a hostname's resolved IPs but never pins them to the socket, so node-fetch performs a second DNS lookup that can return loopback, RFC1918, or cloud metadata addresses. A working proof-of-concept using a public rebinding service is documented in the vendor advisory, though the vulnerability is not listed in CISA KEV and no public exploitation has been reported.
RemediationAI
Vendor-released patch: upgrade Budibase / @budibase/backend-core to 3.39.9 or later, which is the fixed release per the GitHub advisory (https://github.com/Budibase/budibase/security/advisories/GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf). The proper fix pins the validated IP to the socket connection (e.g. a custom http/https Agent with a lookup that reuses the checked address) rather than re-resolving. Until you can patch, apply compensating controls: enforce IMDSv2 (hop-limit and token-required) on AWS so the rebinding read of 169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/ cannot return IAM credentials - this blocks the highest-impact outcome with no application side effects; apply egress network policy from the Budibase pod/host to deny outbound traffic to 127.0.0.0/8, RFC1918 ranges, and 169.254.169.254, accepting that this will break any automations that legitimately need to reach internal endpoints; and tighten who holds automation/webhook permissions since exploitation requires that role, accepting reduced self-service for builders. Restricting or vetting outbound automation destinations (allowlist of approved hostnames/IPs) further limits the primitive at the cost of automation flexibility.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
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
The flaw lives in Budibase's outbound HTTP plumbing - packages/backend-core/src/utils/outboundFetch.ts and the parallel path in packages/server/src/automations/steps/utils.ts. Both call throwIfUnsafe/throwIfBlacklisted, which invokes isBlacklisted() in packages/backend-core/src/blacklist/blacklist.ts. That function resolves the hostname (dns lookup, all=true), checks each IP against a blacklist of disallowed ranges, and returns only a boolean - the resolved IPs are discarded. The request is then issued with plain node-fetch carrying no custom http.Agent/https.Agent, so the underlying socket performs its own independent dns.lookup. This is the textbook root cause captured by CWE-367 (Time-of-Check Time-of-Use race): the address checked at validation time differs from the address connected to at use time. An attacker who controls authoritative DNS for a hostname (e.g. the rbndr.us rebinding service) returns a public IP for the validation query and a private IP for the connection query. The affected package is published as the npm distribution pkg:npm/@budibase/backend-core, consumed by the Budibase low-code platform; the tag set (Kubernetes, SSRF) reflects that cluster/cloud deployments expose internal service meshes and metadata APIs to this primitive.
Know when Kubernetes gets its next vulnerability
- 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
AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Authenticated automation user (PR:L) wins a DNS-rebinding TOCTOU race (AC:H) to reach internal resources across a trust boundary (S:C); primarily a read primitive (C:H), minimal integrity, no availability impact.
Primary rating from NVD.
CVSS VectorNVD
Lifecycle Timeline
4DescriptionNVD
Summary
Authenticated users with automation permissions can bypass Budibase's SSRF blacklist through DNS rebinding.
The outbound fetch flow validates a hostname against the blacklist before the request is sent, but the actual socket connection later performs a separate DNS lookup through node-fetch. Since the validated IPs are never pinned to the connection, an attacker-controlled hostname can return a public IP during validation and a private/internal IP during the real connection.
This results in a non-blind SSRF primitive against internal services reachable from the Budibase host, including loopback, RFC1918 ranges, and cloud metadata endpoints.
Details
The issue comes from the outbound fetch validation flow resolving DNS twice:
During blacklist validation Again during the real socket connection
The first lookup result is discarded after validation, so the second lookup is free to resolve to a different IP.
This creates a classic TOCTOU DNS rebinding issue.
Affected flow in:
packages/backend-core/src/utils/outboundFetch.ts
async function throwIfUnsafe(url: string): Promise<void> {
const parsed = parseUrl(url)
if (await isBlacklisted(parsed.hostname)) {
throw new Error("URL is blocked or could not be resolved safely.")
}
}
for (let redirects = 0; redirects <= MAX_REDIRECTS; redirects++) {
await throwIfUnsafe(nextUrl)
const response = await fetchFn(nextUrl, nextRequest)
// ...
}fetchFn uses plain node-fetch with no custom http.Agent / https.Agent, so the underlying socket performs its own independent dns.lookup after validation completes.
The same pattern also exists in:
packages/server/src/automations/steps/utils.ts
await throwIfBlacklisted(nextUrl)
const response = await fetch(nextUrl, nextRequest)The blacklist implementation resolves hostnames but only returns a boolean:
packages/backend-core/src/blacklist/blacklist.ts
async function lookup(address: string): Promise<string[]> {
address = parseAddress(address)
const addresses = await performLookup(address, { all: true })
return addresses.map(addr => addr.address)
}
export async function isBlacklisted(address: string): Promise<boolean> {
// ...
if (!net.isIP(address)) {
try {
ips = await lookup(address)
} catch (e) {
/* ... */
}
} else {
ips = [address]
}
return ips.some(ip => blackList!.check(ip, getIpVersion(ip)))
}The resolved IPs are discarded, so callers cannot pin the later socket connection to the validated addresses.
An attacker controlling authoritative DNS for a hostname can therefore return:
a public IP during validation a private/internal IP during the actual connection
Anything routing through these helpers inherits the issue, including:
outgoing webhook Slack Discord Make Zapier n8n AI extract object-store fetches
Several of these steps return upstream response content directly into automation output, which makes the SSRF non-blind.
PoC
Tested locally against a self-hosted build from master. No Budibase-operated infrastructure was touched.
Run Budibase locally.
Start a harmless local HTTP listener:
python3 -m http.server 8080 --bind 127.0.0.1
Use a rebinding hostname such as:
7f000001.cb007264.rbndr.us
which rotates between:
127.0.0.1 203.0.113.100
Steps to reproduce:
Log into Budibase with automation permissions. Create an automation using the Outgoing Webhook step. Set the URL to: http://<rebinding-host>:8080/ Trigger the automation.
Observed result:
The blacklist validation resolves the hostname to the public IP and allows the request. node-fetch performs a second DNS lookup during socket creation. The second lookup resolves to 127.0.0.1. The TCP connection lands on the local service. The local server response body appears directly in the automation output. Impact
This produces a non-blind read-SSRF primitive against anything reachable from the Budibase host process, including:
loopback services (127.0.0.1) RFC1918 ranges internal Kubernetes/VPC services cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254)
On cloud deployments without IMDSv2 enforcement, this may expose temporary IAM credentials via:
/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/<role>
On multi-tenant hosted deployments, this may also create potential cross-tenant access paths through shared internal infrastructure.
Executive ViewAI
A vulnerability in Budibase automation allows authenticated users to bypass configured network security controls and access internal cloud infrastructure. This creates a path to extract secrets stored in AWS, GCP, or Azure metadata services, affecting any organization using Budibase with cloud integrations. Patching is critical to prevent credential compromise in cloud-connected environments.
Apply vendor patch.
Threat Intelligence Overview
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.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Server-Side Request Forgery exploits applications that fetch remote resources based on user-supplied URLs.
More in Kubernetes
View allA critical vulnerability in Kubernetes ingress-nginx controller allows unauthenticated attackers with pod network access
Credential-harvesting malware compromised 84 versions of 42 TanStack npm packages on 2026-05-11 via chained GitHub Actio
Kubernetes ingress-nginx contains a configuration injection vulnerability via the mirror-target and mirror-host Ingress
A security issue was discovered in ingress-nginx https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-nginx where the `auth-url` Ingres
A security issue was discovered in ingress-nginx https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-nginx where the `auth-tls-match-c
Kubernetes API server in all versions allow an attacker who is able to create a ClusterIP service and set the spec.exter
A security issue was discovered in Kubernetes where a user that can create pods on Windows nodes may be able to escalate
Argo CD is a declarative, GitOps continuous delivery tool for Kubernetes. Rated critical severity (CVSS 9.9), this vulne
Unauthenticated remote attackers can trigger complete database overwrites, server-side file reads, and SSRF attacks agai
The Kubernetes integration in GitLab Enterprise Edition 11.x before 11.2.8, 11.3.x before 11.3.9, and 11.4.x before 11.4
Fluentd configuration injection in the kube-logging Logging operator before 6.6.0 allows a namespace-scoped user who can
Authenticated Typebot users can abuse the webhook block (HTTP Request component) in versions prior to 3.13.1 to issue ar
EUVD-2026-39915
GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
VulDB
Exploit-DB