VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026Updated 28 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-27129: craftcms cms · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects craftcms cmsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-68437

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.7 Medium : upgrade to 5.8.23 or 4.16.19 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.8.23, 4.16.19

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/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: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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.
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 24 Feb 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 29 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.
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

Upgrade craftcms cms to 5.8.23 or 4.16.19.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
craftcmscms	Affected >=5.0.0-RC1 <5.8.23	Fixed in 5.8.23
craftcmscms	Affected >=4.5.0-RC1 <4.16.19	Fixed in 4.16.19

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade Craft CMS to versions 4.16.19 or 5.8.23 or later, where this vulnerability is patched. Review and tighten GraphQL schema permissions to ensure that only trusted and necessary users have asset editing or creation rights, especially in public schemas. Disable or restrict public GraphQL schemas with write permissions to minimize exposure. Implement network-level controls to limit outbound requests from the CMS server to only trusted destinations, reducing the impact of SSRF exploitation. Monitor logs for unusual GraphQL asset mutation activity, particularly requests involving IPv6 hostnames or unexpected external domains. Conduct regular audits of DNS configurations and internal network services to identify potential targets of SSRF attacks. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SSRF patterns, including those involving IPv6 addresses. Finally, educate development and operations teams about the risks of SSRF and the importance of proper input validation and permission management in GraphQL APIs.

Description

Craft is a content management system (CMS). In versions 4.5.0-RC1 through 4.16.18 and 5.0.0-RC1 through 5.8.22, the SSRF validation in Craft CMS’s GraphQL Asset mutation uses `gethostbyname()`, which only resolves IPv4 addresses. When a hostname has only AAAA (IPv6) records, the function returns the hostname string itself, causing the blocklist comparison to always fail and completely bypassing SSRF protection. This is a bypass of the security fix for CVE-2025-68437. Exploitation requires GraphQL schema permissions for editing assets in the `<VolumeName>` volume and creating assets in the `<VolumeName>` volume. These permissions may be granted to authenticated users with appropriate GraphQL schema access and/or Public Schema (if misconfigured with write permissions). Versions 4.16.19 and 5.8.23 patch the issue.

Impact

This SSRF vulnerability can allow attackers with certain GraphQL permissions to make unauthorized requests from the server to internal or external systems, potentially accessing sensitive internal resources, metadata services, or other protected network segments. The ability to bypass SSRF protections using IPv6-only hostnames increases the attack surface, especially in environments where IPv6 is prevalent. This could lead to data exposure, unauthorized internal network scanning, or pivoting attacks within an organization's infrastructure. Since exploitation requires authenticated access with specific permissions, the risk is higher in environments with misconfigured or overly permissive GraphQL schemas, including public schemas with write access. Organizations using vulnerable Craft CMS versions may face increased risk of internal network compromise, data leakage, and potential disruption of services if attackers leverage this flaw.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (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.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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.
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 3 Mar 2026, 18:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats