VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026Updated 27 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-27567: payloadcms payload · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects payloadcms payloadSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 3.75.0 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.75.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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: 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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 24 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 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 payload and payloadcms/payload to 3.75.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
payloadcmspayload	Affected <3.75.0	Fixed in 3.75.0
GitHubpayloadcms/payload`pkg:github/payloadcms/payload`Other threats	Affected <3.75.0	Fixed in 3.75.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Payload CMS to version 3.75.0 or later immediately to apply the official patch that fixes the SSRF vulnerability.
If upgrading is not immediately possible, disable external file uploads by setting the `disableExternalFile` option in upload-enabled collections to prevent processing of external URLs.
Restrict 'create' permissions on upload-enabled collections strictly to trusted and verified users to minimize the risk of exploitation by unauthorized or compromised accounts.
Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to limit the Payload CMS server's ability to access sensitive internal services, reducing the impact of potential SSRF exploitation.
Monitor logs for unusual or unexpected outbound HTTP requests originating from the Payload CMS server, which could indicate attempted exploitation.
Conduct regular access reviews and enforce the principle of least privilege for users with upload permissions.
Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting the Payload CMS endpoints.
Educate administrators and developers about the risks of SSRF and the importance of validating and sanitizing user-supplied URLs in file upload features. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on configuration options, access control, network restrictions, and monitoring specific to Payload CMS environments.

Description

Payload is a free and open source headless content management system. Prior to 3.75.0, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in Payload's external file upload functionality. When processing external URLs for file uploads, insufficient validation of HTTP redirects could allow an authenticated attacker to access internal network resources. The Payload environment must have at least one collection with `upload` enabled and a user who has `create` access to that upload-enabled collection in order to be vulnerable. An authenticated user with upload collection write permissions could potentially access internal services. Response content from internal services could be retrieved through the application. This vulnerability has been patched in v3.75.0. As a workaround, one may mitigate this vulnerability by disabling external file uploads via the `disableExternalFile` upload collection option, or by restricting `create` access on upload-enabled collections to trusted users only.

Impact

The primary impact of this SSRF vulnerability is unauthorized access to internal network resources through the Payload CMS server, which acts as a proxy for HTTP requests. This can lead to exposure of sensitive internal services, data leakage, and potential reconnaissance for further attacks within an organization's internal network. Confidentiality is significantly affected as attackers can retrieve response content from internal endpoints. Integrity could also be impacted if internal services are manipulated or exploited further after discovery. Availability is not directly affected by this vulnerability. Since exploitation requires authenticated users with specific permissions, the risk is higher in environments with multiple users or where user access controls are lax. Organizations using vulnerable versions of Payload CMS with upload-enabled collections and multiple users with create permissions are at risk. This could affect internal services that are not otherwise exposed to the internet, increasing the attack surface. The vulnerability could be leveraged by malicious insiders or compromised accounts to pivot into internal networks. Although no known exploits are reported in the wild, the medium CVSS score and the nature of SSRF vulnerabilities suggest that attackers could weaponize this flaw if discovered. The impact is particularly critical for organizations relying on Payload CMS for content management in sensitive environments, such as enterprises, government agencies, and service providers.

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, 18:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats