CVE-2026-2654VulnerabilityPublished 18 Feb 2026Updated 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-2654: huggingface smolagents · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects huggingface smolagentsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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.

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 18 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
huggingfacesmolagents	Affected =1.24.0	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:huggingface:smolagents:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

2) Employ strict input validation and sanitization on any user-controllable inputs that influence requests.get or requests.post calls within LocalPythonExecutor, ensuring only safe URLs or domains are allowed. 3) Use application-layer proxies or request allowlists to prevent requests to internal IP ranges (e.g., 127.0.0.1, 10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/16) or cloud metadata service IPs. 4) Monitor logs for unusual outbound HTTP requests originating from smolagents components to detect potential exploitation attempts. 5) Consider isolating smolagents workloads in containerized or sandboxed environments with minimal network privileges. 6) Stay alert for vendor updates or community patches and apply them promptly once available. 7) If feasible, upgrade to a non-vulnerable version of smolagents once released. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on network controls, input validation, and monitoring specific to the SSRF context in smolagents.

Description

A weakness has been identified in huggingface smolagents 1.24.0. Impacted is the function requests.get/requests.post of the component LocalPythonExecutor. Executing a manipulation can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The primary impact of this SSRF vulnerability is unauthorized internal network access and potential information disclosure. Attackers exploiting this flaw can coerce the vulnerable server to send crafted HTTP requests to internal services, such as cloud metadata endpoints, internal APIs, or other protected resources, which could reveal sensitive data or enable lateral movement within the network. This can lead to compromise of confidential information, disruption of service integrity, or availability degradation if internal services are manipulated or overwhelmed. Organizations relying on huggingface smolagents 1.24.0 in cloud or enterprise environments are at risk of internal network reconnaissance and data leakage. The medium CVSS score reflects that while the vulnerability does not directly allow remote code execution or full system compromise, the SSRF can be a stepping stone for more severe attacks. The lack of vendor response and patches increases the window of exposure, raising the urgency for organizations to implement mitigations. The impact is especially significant in environments where smolagents are deployed with elevated privileges or network access to sensitive internal resources.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…