VulnerabilityPublished 30 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-29925: invoiceninja · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects invoiceninjaSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 30 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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
GitHubinvoiceninja/invoiceninja`pkg:github/invoiceninja/invoiceninja`Other threats	Affected =5.12.46 =5.12.48	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Organizations using Invoice Ninja versions 5.12.46 and 5.12.48 should immediately monitor for vendor updates and apply patches as soon as they are released. In the absence of official patches, administrators should implement network-level controls to restrict outbound HTTP requests from the Invoice Ninja server to only trusted destinations, effectively limiting SSRF attack vectors. Input validation should be enhanced to strictly validate and sanitize any user-supplied URLs or endpoints used in database connectivity checks. Web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious SSRF patterns or anomalous requests targeting internal resources. Additionally, segregating the Invoice Ninja server in a network segment with limited access to sensitive internal services can reduce potential damage. Regular security audits and penetration testing focused on SSRF and related vulnerabilities are recommended. Monitoring logs for unusual outbound requests or error messages from CheckDatabaseRequest.php can provide early detection of exploitation attempts. Finally, educating development teams about secure coding practices around user input handling will help prevent similar issues in future releases.

Description

Invoice Ninja v5.12.46 and v5.12.48 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in CheckDatabaseRequest.php.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in Invoice Ninja can have significant consequences for organizations using the affected versions. Attackers exploiting this flaw can potentially access internal services that are not exposed externally, leading to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information such as internal APIs, metadata services, or database endpoints. This can compromise confidentiality and integrity of data. Additionally, SSRF can be leveraged as a stepping stone for lateral movement within the network, enabling attackers to escalate privileges or deploy further attacks such as remote code execution if other vulnerabilities exist. For businesses relying on Invoice Ninja for financial and invoicing operations, exploitation could disrupt services or lead to financial data exposure, damaging reputation and causing regulatory compliance issues. The lack of known exploits currently reduces immediate risk but does not diminish the urgency for remediation. The scope of impact is broad given the global usage of Invoice Ninja, particularly among SMEs that may have limited cybersecurity resources. The vulnerability does not require user interaction, which increases the likelihood of automated or remote exploitation attempts once details become public.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (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.
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 30 Mar 2026, 18:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats