VulnerabilityPublished 22 Feb 2026Updated 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-2945: JeecgBoot · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects JeecgBootSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
JeecgBoot	Affected =3.9.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-2945, organizations should immediately implement the following measures: 1) Restrict network egress from application servers to only necessary external endpoints using firewall rules or network segmentation to limit SSRF impact. 2) Implement strict input validation and sanitization on the fileUrl parameter to ensure only allowed URLs or domains can be requested, ideally using a whitelist approach. 3) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block SSRF attack patterns targeting the /sys/common/uploadImgByHttp endpoint. 4) Monitor application logs for unusual outbound HTTP requests originating from the vulnerable endpoint. 5) If possible, upgrade or patch JeecgBoot once the vendor releases a fix; meanwhile, consider disabling or restricting access to the vulnerable functionality. 6) Conduct internal penetration testing and code reviews to identify and remediate similar SSRF weaknesses in custom code. 7) Educate developers on secure coding practices to prevent SSRF and related vulnerabilities in future development. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on network controls, input validation, and proactive detection tailored to the specific vulnerable endpoint and parameter.

Description

A weakness has been identified in JeecgBoot 3.9.0. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /sys/common/uploadImgByHttp. Executing a manipulation of the argument fileUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in JeecgBoot 3.9.0 can have significant impacts on organizations using this software. Attackers exploiting this flaw can make the vulnerable server send arbitrary HTTP requests, potentially accessing internal services, metadata endpoints, or other protected resources within the organization's network. This can lead to unauthorized information disclosure, such as internal IP addresses, sensitive configuration data, or cloud metadata, which can be leveraged for further attacks. While the direct impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability is rated low to medium, the SSRF can serve as a pivot point for more severe attacks, including lateral movement or privilege escalation within internal networks. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements increases the risk of automated exploitation. Organizations with JeecgBoot-based applications exposed to the internet are particularly at risk. The absence of a vendor patch and the presence of public exploits further elevate the threat level, potentially leading to data breaches or disruption of services if exploited in combination with other vulnerabilities.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Mar 2026, 06:08 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats