VulnerabilityPublished 27 Feb 2026Updated 2 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-28423: statamic cms · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects statamic cmsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 6.4.0 or 5.73.11 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.4.0, 5.73.11

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 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 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 cms to 6.4.0 or 5.73.11; statamic/cms to 5.73.11.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
statamiccms	Affected >=6.0.0 <6.4.0	Fixed in 6.4.0
statamiccms	Affected <5.73.11	Fixed in 5.73.11
GitHubstatamic/cms`pkg:github/statamic/cms`Other threats	Affected <5.73.11	Fixed in 5.73.11

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Statamic CMS to version 5.73.11 or later, or 6.4.0 or later, as these versions contain the fix for this SSRF vulnerability.
If immediate upgrade is not possible, ensure that the Glide image manipulation feature is not configured in insecure mode, as this mode enables the vulnerability.
Implement network-level controls to restrict the CMS server’s ability to make outbound HTTP requests to internal or sensitive endpoints, such as cloud metadata services.
Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block SSRF attack patterns targeting image proxy endpoints.
Conduct regular security audits and configuration reviews to verify that insecure features are disabled and that the CMS is running supported, patched versions.
Monitor logs for unusual outbound HTTP requests originating from the CMS server, which may indicate attempted exploitation.
Educate development and operations teams about the risks of enabling insecure modes in CMS features and enforce secure configuration baselines.
Consider isolating the CMS server in a network segment with limited access to internal services to reduce potential impact if exploited.

Description

Statmatic is a Laravel and Git powered content management system (CMS). Prior to versions 5.73.11 and 6.4.0, when Glide image manipulation is used in insecure mode (which is not the default), the image proxy can be abused by an unauthenticated user to make the server send HTTP requests to arbitrary URLs—either via the URL directly or via the watermark feature. That can allow access to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, and other hosts reachable from the server. This has been fixed in 5.73.11 and 6.4.0.

Impact

The primary impact of this SSRF vulnerability is the potential exposure of sensitive internal resources to unauthenticated attackers. By exploiting this flaw, attackers can access internal services that are normally protected by network segmentation or firewalls, such as internal APIs, administrative interfaces, or cloud metadata endpoints that often contain credentials or configuration data. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, including credentials, tokens, or configuration details, which can be leveraged for further attacks such as privilege escalation or lateral movement within the network. While the vulnerability does not directly affect data integrity or system availability, the confidentiality breach can have severe consequences, especially in cloud environments where metadata endpoints provide access to instance credentials. Organizations using Statamic CMS in environments with sensitive internal services or cloud infrastructure are at higher risk. The lack of authentication requirement and the ability to trigger requests remotely increase the threat level. However, the requirement for insecure Glide mode to be enabled reduces the overall attack surface, limiting exposure to misconfigured deployments. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited active exploitation currently, but the vulnerability remains a significant risk if left unpatched.

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 7 Mar 2026, 21:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats