VulnerabilityPublished 8 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-124500: Fengoffice Feng Office · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects Fengoffice Feng OfficeSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 8 Nov 2026, 23:50 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (VulDB)	CVSS 4.0	5.3
CNA (VulDB)	CVSS 3.1	6.3
CNA (VulDB)	CVSS 3.0	6.3
CNA (VulDB)	CVSS 2.0	6.5

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 8 Nov 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
FengofficeFeng Office	Affected 3.11.13.0 – 4.2.1.2 15 affected builds	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:fengoffice:feng_office:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Users should apply strict input validation or filtering on the url parameter in the upload_document_image function if possible. Network-level controls such as firewall rules restricting outbound requests from the application server may reduce exploitation risk. Monitor for updates from the vendor for an official fix.

Description

CVE-2026-124500 is a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Fengoffice Feng Office affecting versions 3.11.13.0 through 3.11.13.11 and 4.2.1.0 through 4.2.1.2. The flaw exists in the upload_document_image function of the FilesController component, where manipulation of the url argument allows an attacker to induce the server to make unintended requests. The vulnerability can be exploited remotely and public exploit code is available. The vendor has not responded to disclosure attempts and no patch information is provided.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to induce the vulnerable server to make arbitrary HTTP requests, potentially accessing internal resources or services not directly reachable by the attacker. This can lead to information disclosure or further network reconnaissance. The vulnerability does not require user interaction and can be triggered remotely. The CVSS score of 5.3 reflects a medium severity impact with low complexity and no privileges required.

Summary

This vulnerability in Fengoffice Feng Office arises from improper validation of the url parameter in the upload_document_image function within application/controllers/FilesController.class.php. An attacker can exploit this to perform server-side request forgery, causing the server to send crafted requests to arbitrary locations. The affected versions include all releases from 3.11.13.0 to 3.11.13.11 and 4.2.1.0 to 4.2.1.2. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable without user interaction and has a CVSS 4.0 base score of 5.3 (medium severity). Public exploit code is available, but no official vendor patch or advisory has been released.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…