VulnerabilityPublished 6 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30242: makeplane plane · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects makeplane planeSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.5 High : upgrade to 1.2.3 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 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 plane and makeplane/plane to 1.2.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
makeplaneplane	Affected <1.2.3	Fixed in 1.2.3
GitHubmakeplane/plane`pkg:github/makeplane/plane`Other threats	Affected <1.2.3	Fixed in 1.2.3

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade Plane to version 1.2.3 or later immediately to apply the official patch that properly validates webhook URLs and blocks private/internal IP addresses.
Audit existing webhook configurations to identify and remove any webhooks pointing to internal or private IP addresses.
Implement strict role-based access controls (RBAC) to limit ADMIN privileges only to trusted personnel and monitor for suspicious ADMIN activities.
Employ network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict the Plane server’s ability to initiate HTTP requests to sensitive internal IP ranges, minimizing the SSRF attack surface.
Monitor logs for unusual outbound HTTP requests from the Plane server, especially to internal IP addresses or metadata endpoints.
Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection capabilities to detect and block malicious webhook-triggered requests.
Educate administrators about the risks of SSRF and the importance of validating webhook endpoints before creation.
If possible, disable webhook functionality temporarily until the patch is applied and configurations are verified.

Description

Plane is an an open-source project management tool. Prior to version 1.2.3, the webhook URL validation in plane/app/serializers/webhook.py only checks ip.is_loopback, allowing attackers with workspace ADMIN role to create webhooks pointing to private/internal network addresses (10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x, 192.168.x.x, 169.254.169.254, etc.). When webhook events fire, the server makes requests to these internal addresses and stores the response — enabling SSRF with full response read-back. This issue has been patched in version 1.2.3.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-30242 is the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive internal information due to SSRF attacks. Attackers with ADMIN privileges can leverage this vulnerability to access internal network resources that are normally inaccessible from outside the Plane server, including private IP ranges and cloud metadata services. This can lead to exposure of sensitive configuration data, internal APIs, or credentials stored in metadata endpoints, potentially enabling lateral movement, privilege escalation, or further compromise of the organization's infrastructure. The confidentiality impact is high because attackers can read full HTTP responses from internal systems. Integrity impact is limited because the vulnerability does not allow modifying internal resources directly, and availability impact is negligible. Organizations using Plane in environments with sensitive internal services or cloud infrastructure are at significant risk. The requirement for ADMIN privileges reduces the risk from external unauthenticated attackers but elevates the threat from insider attackers or compromised admin accounts. Failure to patch could result in data breaches, compliance violations, and operational risks.

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 14 Mar 2026, 19:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats