VulnerabilityPublished 27 Feb 2026Updated 2 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-28416: gradio · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects gradioSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 6.6.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 7.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 94% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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 on 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 27 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 gradio to 6.6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
gradio-appgradio	Affected <6.6.0	Fixed in 6.6.0
PyPIgradio`pkg:pypi/gradio`Other threats	Affected <6.6.0	Fixed in 6.6.0

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 Gradio to version 6.6.0 or later, where the SSRF vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrading, avoid loading untrusted or attacker-controlled Gradio Spaces using gr.load(). Implement network-level controls to restrict outbound HTTP requests from servers running Gradio, limiting access to only necessary external endpoints and blocking internal metadata or private network addresses. Employ strict input validation and sanitization for any user-supplied URLs or proxy configurations in Gradio Spaces. Monitor network traffic for unusual outbound requests originating from Gradio servers, especially to internal IP ranges or cloud metadata endpoints. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) with rules targeting SSRF patterns. Educate developers and users about the risks of loading untrusted Spaces and enforce policies to only use vetted Spaces. Finally, conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on SSRF and related vulnerabilities in development and production environments.

Description

Gradio is an open-source Python package designed for quick prototyping. Prior to version 6.6.0, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Gradio allows an attacker to make arbitrary HTTP requests from a victim's server by hosting a malicious Gradio Space. When a victim application uses `gr.load()` to load an attacker-controlled Space, the malicious `proxy_url` from the config is trusted and added to the allowlist, enabling the attacker to access internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, and private networks through the victim's infrastructure. Version 6.6.0 fixes the issue.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in Gradio can have severe consequences for organizations using vulnerable versions, especially those deploying Gradio in cloud or internal network environments. Attackers can leverage this flaw to access sensitive internal services that are otherwise inaccessible externally, including cloud metadata endpoints that often contain credentials or tokens. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, such as cloud instance credentials, internal APIs, or private data stores. Additionally, attackers may use the SSRF to pivot within the victim's network, potentially escalating attacks or causing further compromise. The vulnerability does not directly impact availability or integrity but poses a significant confidentiality risk. Organizations relying on Gradio for rapid prototyping or internal tools may inadvertently expose critical infrastructure. Given the ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction, the threat is substantial. Although no active exploitation is reported, the potential for damage is high, especially in cloud-heavy environments or organizations with sensitive internal services.

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

github.com/gradio-app/gradio/security/advisories/GHSA-jmh7-g254-2cq9 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Mar 2026, 21:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats