VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jun 2026Updated 15 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-50168: @angular/platform-server · URL Parser Differential leading to SSRF Allowlist Bypass

Affects @angular/platform-serverSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 22.0.0-rc.2 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 22.0.0-rc.2, 20.3.22, 19.2.23 +1

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Jun 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npm@angular/platform-server	Affected >=22.0.0-next.0 <22.0.0-rc.2	Fixed in 22.0.0-rc.2
npm@angular/platform-server	Affected >=20.0.0-next.0 <20.3.22	Fixed in 20.3.22
npm@angular/platform-server	Affected >=19.0.0-next.0 <19.2.23	Fixed in 19.2.23
npm@angular/platform-server	Affected <=18.2.14	Fixed in–
npm@angular/platform-server	Affected >=21.0.0-next.0 <21.2.15	Fixed in 21.2.15

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

An issue in the `@angular/platform-server` package allows remote attackers to bypass host allowlist constraints and direct server-side outgoing requests to arbitrary external endpoints. This occurs due to a parser differential between the strict WHATWG URL parser used for allowlist validation and the lenient Domino URL parser used to initialize the server emulated DOM. When a server-side request contains a malformed URL with a double port structure (e.g., `http://evil.com:80:80/path`), Node's strict `URL.canParse(url)` logic returns `false` and skips host check validation entirely. However, the same malformed URL is later accepted and parsed leniently by Domino's internal parser, which resolves the origin to `http://evil.com:80`. The Angular SSR HTTP request interceptor (`relativeUrlsTransformerInterceptorFn`) then resolves all relative backend HTTP requests against this adopted origin, executing the SSRF attack. ### Impact Any Angular application utilizing server-side rendering (`@angular/platform-server`) that configures host routing allowlists (`allowedHosts`) is vulnerable to this allowlist bypass. By sending an HTTP request with a malformed Host header (e.g. `Host: evil.com:80:80`) or an absolute-form request URI, an attacker can bypass the allowlist logic completely (even when configured with a strict default deny setup). The SSR application will then route all relative `HttpClient` outgoing API queries—which commonly carry sensitive credentials, session cookies, and internal authorization tokens—to the attacker-controlled server instead of the intended backend services. Additionally, the attacker can supply custom payloads back to the emulated DOM, leading to response injection and content poisoning within the rendered HTML served to users. ### Attack Preconditions To successfully exploit this vulnerability, the following environment parameters and application states must all concurrently exist: 1. **Active Server-Side Rendering (SSR):** The application must be configured to run with Angular Server-Side Rendering (`@angular/platform-server`). 2. **Host Header/URI Propagation:** The SSR handler must reconstruct the request URL using raw client inputs (such as request Host headers or absolute-form URIs) and pass it as `config.url` to the rendering API (`renderApplication` or `renderModule`). 3. **Outbound Relative HTTP Requests:** The server application must perform outbound backend API requests using relative paths (e.g., `this.http.get('/api/data')`) that undergo base-URL interceptor rewriting. 4. **Enabled Allowed Hosts Check:** The server must use the framework-provided `allowedHosts` options to limit valid server locations. ### Patches * 22.0.0-rc.2 * 21.2.15 * 20.3.22 * 19.2.23

CWE-346Origin Validation Error (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
DNS Cache Poisoning (opens in a new tab)
Exploit Script-Based APIs (opens in a new tab)
Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-346, CWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats