CVE-2026-22247VulnerabilityPublished 4 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-22247: glpi · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects glpiSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium : upgrade to 11.0.5 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 11.0.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 4 Feb 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 2026-10-25.

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 glpi and glpi-project/glpi to 11.0.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
glpi-projectglpi	Affected >=11.0.0 <11.0.5	Fixed in 11.0.5
GitHubglpi-project/glpi`pkg:github/glpi-project/glpi`Other threats	Affected >=11.0.0 <11.0.5	Fixed in 11.0.5

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

AI-suggested

European organizations using GLPI versions 11.0.0 through 11.0.4 should immediately upgrade to version 11.0.5 or later, where the SSRF vulnerability is patched. Restrict administrative access to GLPI to trusted personnel and enforce strong authentication mechanisms, including multi-factor authentication, to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Monitor and audit Webhook configurations and usage to detect unusual or unauthorized request patterns. Network segmentation should be employed to limit GLPI server access to sensitive internal resources, minimizing the impact of potential SSRF exploitation. Additionally, implement strict egress filtering on the GLPI server to prevent unauthorized outbound requests to internal or external systems. Regularly review and update GLPI and related infrastructure to ensure timely application of security patches.

Description

CVE-2026-22247 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability affecting GLPI versions 11.0.0 through 11.0.4. An authenticated GLPI administrator can exploit the Webhook feature to make SSRF requests, potentially causing the server to send unauthorized requests to internal or external systems. This vulnerability does not allow direct data modification or denial of service but can lead to information disclosure within the internal network. The issue was patched in version 11.0.5.

Impact

For European organizations, the SSRF vulnerability in GLPI can lead to unauthorized internal network scanning and information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive infrastructure details. This is particularly concerning for organizations managing critical assets and IT infrastructure with GLPI, as attackers could leverage SSRF to identify vulnerable internal services or pivot to more severe attacks. Although exploitation requires administrator privileges, the risk is elevated if credential theft or insider threats occur. The vulnerability does not directly cause data loss or service disruption but can be a stepping stone for more damaging attacks. Organizations in sectors such as government, finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure that rely on GLPI for asset management may face increased risk. Additionally, the medium CVSS score indicates moderate urgency for patching, but the potential for internal network reconnaissance should not be underestimated.

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 12 Feb 2026, 07:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats