CVE-2026-24052VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-24052: anthropics claude-code · Open Redirect

Affects anthropics claude-codeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 1.0.111 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.111

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 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 2026-10-26.

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 claude-code and anthropics/claude-code to 1.0.111.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
anthropicsclaude-code	Affected <1.0.111	Fixed in 1.0.111
GitHubanthropics/claude-code`pkg:github/anthropics/claude-code`Other threats	Affected <1.0.111	Fixed in 1.0.111

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 Claude Code should immediately upgrade to version 1.0.111 or later, where the vulnerability has been patched. Until upgrading is possible, organizations should implement strict network egress filtering to restrict WebFetch requests to only verified and necessary domains, preventing connections to suspicious subdomains. Security teams should audit and monitor WebFetch usage logs for anomalous or unexpected outbound requests. User training should emphasize caution when interacting with automated tools that perform network requests, highlighting the risk of open redirects. Additionally, organizations can implement runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious URL patterns resembling subdomain spoofing. Finally, integrating URL validation libraries that perform exact domain matching rather than prefix checks can prevent similar vulnerabilities in custom tools.

Description

CVE-2026-24052 is a high-severity open redirect vulnerability in anthropics' Claude Code agentic coding tool prior to version 1.0.111. The flaw arises from improper URL validation using a startsWith() check, allowing attacker-controlled domains like modelcontextprotocol.io.example.com to bypass trusted domain verification. This can cause automatic WebFetch requests to malicious domains without user consent, potentially leading to data exfiltration. No authentication or privileges are required to exploit this vulnerability, but user interaction is needed. The issue has been patched in version 1.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those leveraging Claude Code in their software development or automation workflows. The automatic redirection to attacker-controlled domains can lead to unauthorized data exfiltration, potentially exposing sensitive intellectual property, credentials, or internal API data. This can undermine confidentiality and trust in automated coding tools. Given the high adoption of advanced coding assistants in European tech hubs, the risk of targeted exploitation is non-trivial. Additionally, organizations in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure may face compliance and reputational damage if sensitive data is leaked. The requirement for user interaction means phishing or social engineering could be used to trigger the exploit, increasing the attack surface. Although no active exploits are known, the vulnerability's characteristics make it a likely candidate for future exploitation, especially as attackers craft sophisticated supply chain or development environment attacks.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
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.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/anthropics/claude-code/security/advisories/GHSA-vhw5-3g5m-8ggf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Feb 2026, 11:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats