VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-27797: homarr · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects homarrSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.54.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 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 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.54.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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: 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 impacted component.
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 7 Mar 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 homarr and homarr-labs/homarr to 1.54.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
homarr-labshomarr	Affected <1.54.0	Fixed in 1.54.0
GitHubhomarr-labs/homarr`pkg:github/homarr-labs/homarr`Other threats	Affected <1.54.0	Fixed in 1.54.0

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-27797, organizations should immediately upgrade Homarr to version 1.54.0 or later, where the SSRF vulnerability has been patched. If upgrading is not immediately possible, implement network-level restrictions to limit outbound HTTP requests from the Homarr server or container, using firewall rules or egress filtering to prevent unauthorized internal network access. Additionally, apply strict input validation and sanitization on any user-controllable parameters that influence outbound requests, if applicable. Employ network segmentation to isolate Homarr servers from sensitive internal services and metadata endpoints. Monitor network traffic for unusual outbound requests originating from Homarr instances. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection capabilities to block suspicious request patterns. Finally, conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on SSRF and internal network exposure to identify and remediate similar issues proactively.

Description

Homarr is an open-source dashboard. Prior to version 1.54.0, an unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability allows a remote attacker to force the Homarr server to perform arbitrary outbound HTTP requests. This can be used as an internal network access primitive (e.g., reaching loopback/private ranges) from the Homarr host/container network context. This issue has been patched in version 1.54.0.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-27797 is unauthorized internal network access via SSRF, which can lead to information disclosure of internal services or metadata endpoints. Organizations running vulnerable versions of Homarr expose their internal network infrastructure to remote attackers without requiring authentication. This can facilitate further attacks such as internal service enumeration, exploitation of internal vulnerabilities, or lateral movement within the network. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise integrity or availability, the ability to access internal resources can be a stepping stone for more severe attacks. The risk is higher in environments where Homarr is deployed in containerized or cloud environments with sensitive internal services accessible only via internal IPs. The medium CVSS score reflects the moderate severity, but the actual impact depends on the internal network architecture and what services are accessible internally. Organizations with sensitive internal APIs or metadata services exposed internally are at greater risk. Since no known exploits are reported yet, the threat is currently theoretical but should be treated proactively due to the ease of exploitation and lack of authentication requirements.

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 14 Mar 2026, 19:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats