VulnerabilityPublished 30 Nov 2023Updated 5 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-49094: getsentry symbolicator · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects getsentry symbolicatorSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 23.11.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 23.11.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 30 Nov 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC 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 getsentry/symbolicator to 23.11.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgetsentry/symbolicator`pkg:github/getsentry/symbolicator`Other threats	Affected <23.11.2	Fixed in 23.11.2

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should promptly upgrade Symbolicator to version 23.11.2 or later to remediate the SSRF vulnerability. Beyond patching, organizations should enforce strict access controls on Sentry instances, limiting user permissions to the minimum necessary to reduce the risk of exploitation by low-privilege users. Network segmentation should be reviewed to ensure that internal services are not unnecessarily accessible from the Symbolicator host, minimizing the impact of SSRF. Implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection rules can provide an additional layer of defense. Monitoring and logging of Symbolicator HTTP requests should be enhanced to detect unusual outbound requests indicative of SSRF attempts. Regular audits of user accounts and their privileges on Sentry instances will help prevent abuse by compromised or malicious insiders. Finally, organizations should consider restricting Symbolicator's outbound network access to only trusted endpoints required for normal operation.

Description

Symbolicator is a symbolication service for native stacktraces and minidumps with symbol server support. An attacker could make Symbolicator send arbitrary GET HTTP requests to internal IP addresses by using a specially crafted HTTP endpoint. The response could be reflected to the attacker if they have an account on Sentry instance. The issue has been fixed in the release 23.11.2.

Impact

For European organizations using Sentry with the Symbolicator service, this vulnerability poses a risk of internal network reconnaissance and potential information leakage. Attackers with valid user accounts could leverage SSRF to probe internal services, potentially discovering sensitive infrastructure components or internal APIs that are not otherwise accessible externally. While the vulnerability does not directly allow code execution or denial of service, the information gained could facilitate further attacks such as lateral movement or privilege escalation. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR) must consider the confidentiality impact seriously, as unauthorized internal data exposure could lead to compliance violations and reputational damage. The medium CVSS score reflects that exploitation requires some level of authenticated access, limiting the attack surface to insiders or compromised accounts. However, given the widespread adoption of Sentry in software development and monitoring environments, the vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against European enterprises relying on these tools for error tracking and diagnostics.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (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.
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

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 09:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats