VulnerabilityPublished 27 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-117471: esaqa Psono · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects esaqa PsonoSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 7.2.4 when convenient.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 06:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 7.2.4

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

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

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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Oct 2026
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 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 esaqa Psono to 7.2.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
esaqa GmbHPsono	Affected >=0.1.0 <7.2.4	Fixed in 7.2.4

AI-suggested

Upgrade Psono Server CE and EE to version 7.2.4 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability is fixed. Since the vendor advisory confirms the fix in 7.2.4, applying this official patch fully mitigates the issue. No additional mitigations are specified or required.

Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in esaqa GmbH Psono Server CE and EE versions 0.1.0 through 7.2.3. The flaw allows an authenticated attacker to specify a host for Duo device configuration, causing the server to connect to that host over HTTPS on port 443 without an allowlist or explicit timeout. The vulnerability enables internal DNS and service reachability probing but requires TLS certificate validation and does not allow arbitrary protocol or port access. Unresponsive targets may also tie up server workers until OS timeouts occur. The issue is fixed in version 7.2.4.

Impact

An authenticated attacker can leverage this SSRF vulnerability to probe internal network hosts and DNS via HTTPS connections on port 443, gaining information about internal service availability and DNS resolution. The requirement for TLS certificate validation limits the attacker's ability to use arbitrary protocols or ports. The vulnerability can also cause resource exhaustion by occupying server workers with unresponsive connections until OS timeouts occur. There is no indication of arbitrary code execution or data compromise beyond information disclosure and potential denial of service. No known exploits are reported in the wild.

Summary

CVE-2026-117471 is a CWE-918 SSRF vulnerability in Psono Server CE and EE versions from 0.1.0 up to but not including 7.2.4. It arises because the server accepts a user-controlled host parameter when configuring a personal Duo device and passes it to the Duo client without restrictions such as an allowlist or explicit timeout. This allows an authenticated remote attacker to induce the server to initiate HTTPS connections on port 443 to attacker-chosen hosts, distinguishing failure modes and effectively using the server as an internal DNS and service reachability oracle. The connections still require valid TLS certificates, limiting protocol and port abuse. Additionally, unresponsive targets can occupy server workers until OS-level timeouts occur, potentially impacting availability. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 score of 5.4 (medium severity) and is fixed in version 7.2.4.

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 27 Oct 2026, 05:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats