VulnerabilityPublished 21 Feb 2026Updated 24 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-27479: ellite Wallos · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects ellite WallosSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High : upgrade to 4.6.1 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.6.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 21 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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 ellite Wallos to 4.6.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
elliteWallos	Affected <4.6.1	Fixed in 4.6.1

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade Wallos to version 4.6.1 or later where the issue is fixed. If upgrading is not immediately possible, administrators should disable or restrict the logo/icon upload functionality to trusted URLs only or disable HTTP redirects in the cURL requests by setting CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION to false. Additionally, implementing network-level controls such as firewall rules to restrict outbound HTTP requests from the Wallos server to internal IP ranges and cloud metadata endpoints can reduce risk. Monitoring and logging outbound HTTP requests from Wallos can help detect exploitation attempts. Employing web application firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection rules may provide additional protection. Finally, reviewing cloud instance metadata service access policies and using metadata service protection mechanisms (e.g., AWS IMDSv2) can limit the impact of SSRF attacks targeting cloud environments.

Description

Wallos is an open-source, self-hostable personal subscription tracker. Versions 4.6.0 and below contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the subscription and payment logo/icon upload functionality. The application validates the IP address of the provided URL before making the request, but allows HTTP redirects (CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION = true), enabling an attacker to bypass the IP validation and access internal resources, including cloud instance metadata endpoints. The getLogoFromUrl() function validates the URL by resolving the hostname and checking if the resulting IP is in a private or reserved range using FILTER_FLAG_NO_PRIV_RANGE | FILTER_FLAG_NO_RES_RANGE. However, the subsequent cURL request is configured with CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION = true and CURLOPT_MAXREDIRS = 3, which means the request will follow HTTP redirects without re-validating the destination IP. This issue has been fixed in version 4.6.1.

Impact

This SSRF vulnerability can lead to unauthorized internal network access from the vulnerable Wallos server, potentially exposing sensitive internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. Attackers can leverage this to extract confidential information such as cloud instance credentials, internal APIs, or configuration data, which can facilitate further attacks like privilege escalation, lateral movement, or data exfiltration. Organizations running affected Wallos versions may face data breaches, loss of confidentiality, and increased risk of compromise of their cloud infrastructure. Since Wallos is a self-hosted personal subscription tracker, the impact may vary depending on the deployment environment, but any deployment within corporate or cloud environments is at risk. The vulnerability does not affect data integrity or availability directly but can be a stepping stone for more severe attacks. The ease of exploitation and the potential to access sensitive internal resources make this a significant threat for organizations relying on Wallos versions prior to 4.6.1.

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 28 Feb 2026, 12:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats