VulnerabilityPublished 6 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-28681: irrdnet irrd · Open Redirect

Affects irrdnet irrdSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 4.5.1 or 4.4.5 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.5.1, 4.4.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 6 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 irrd and irrdnet/irrd to 4.5.1 or 4.4.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
irrdnetirrd	Affected >=4.5.0 <4.5.1	Fixed in 4.5.1
irrdnetirrd	Affected >=4.4.0 <4.4.5	Fixed in 4.4.5
GitHubirrdnet/irrd`pkg:github/irrdnet/irrd`Other threats	Affected <4.4.5 >=4.4.0 <4.4.5 <4.5.1 >=4.5.0 <4.5.1	Fixed in 4.4.5 4.5.1

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 irrd to versions 4.4.5 or 4.5.1 to apply the official patches addressing this vulnerability. Until patched, administrators should enforce two-factor authentication for all accounts, especially those with override access, to reduce the risk of account takeover. Additionally, monitoring email templates and confirmation link generation logic for proper validation of the Host header can help detect or prevent manipulation. Implementing strict validation or whitelisting of Host headers on the server side will mitigate open redirect risks. User education on phishing risks related to password reset emails is essential to reduce the chance of token leakage. Logging and alerting on unusual password reset or account creation requests with suspicious Host headers can aid in early detection. Network operators should audit RPSL object changes for unauthorized modifications and maintain backups of routing data for recovery. Finally, consider isolating IRRD instances behind web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block open redirect attempts.

Description

Internet Routing Registry daemon version 4 is an IRR database server, processing IRR objects in the RPSL format. From version 4.4.0 to before version 4.4.5 and from version 4.5.0 to before version 4.5.1, an attacker can manipulate the HTTP Host header on a password reset or account creation request. The confirmation link in the resulting email can then point to an attacker-controlled domain. Opening the link in the email is sufficient to pass the token to the attacker, who can then use it on the real IRRD instance to take over the account. A compromised account can then be used to modify RPSL objects maintained by the account's mntners and perform other account actions. If the user had two-factor authentication configured, which is required for users with override access, an attacker is not able to log in, even after successfully resetting the password. This issue has been patched in versions 4.4.5 and 4.5.1.

Impact

This vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations relying on irrd for managing Internet Routing Registry data. Successful exploitation leads to account takeover, allowing attackers to modify routing policy objects, which could disrupt network routing, cause traffic misdirection, or enable further attacks such as BGP hijacking. The integrity of routing data is critical for Internet infrastructure stability; thus, compromised accounts could have cascading effects on network operators and their customers. While 2FA mitigates risk for high-privilege users, accounts without 2FA remain vulnerable. The attack requires user interaction (clicking the malicious link), but no prior authentication or complex exploitation is needed, increasing the likelihood of successful phishing campaigns. The vulnerability does not impact system availability directly but threatens confidentiality and integrity of routing data, which are vital for secure network operations.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site (Open Redirect) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
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.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-640Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
Architecture and Design
Make sure that all input supplied by the user to the password recovery mechanism is thoroughly filtered and validated.
Architecture and Design
Do not use standard weak security questions and use several security questions.
Architecture and Design
Make sure that there is throttling on the number of incorrect answers to a security question. Disable the password recovery functionality after a certain (small) number of incorrect guesses.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Choosing and Using Security Questions (opens in a new tab)
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Password Recovery Exploitation (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 6 Mar 2026, 05:00 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601, CWE-640

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats