VulnerabilityPublished 24 Feb 2026Updated 28 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-3052: DataLinkDC dinky · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects DataLinkDC dinkySource 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% 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 24 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
DataLinkDCdinky	Affected 1.2.0 – 1.2.5 6 affected builds	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.dinky/dinky`pkg:maven/org.dinky/dinky`Other threats	Affected 1.2.0 – 1.2.5 6 affected builds	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to the Flink Proxy Controller component, limiting it to trusted IP addresses or internal networks only.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization at the application or proxy layer to prevent malicious request manipulation.
Deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) or intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) configured to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting the proxyUba endpoint.
Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests originating from the dinky server, especially those targeting internal IP ranges or sensitive services.
If possible, isolate the dinky proxy server in a segmented network zone with minimal privileges and no direct access to critical internal resources.
Engage in active threat hunting for signs of exploitation attempts using the public exploit code.
Consider deploying temporary reverse proxies or API gateways that enforce stricter request controls until an official patch is released.
Maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans in case of compromise.
Follow DataLinkDC and Apache Flink community channels for updates or patches addressing this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability was found in DataLinkDC dinky up to 1.2.5. The impacted element is the function proxyUba of the file dinky-admin/src/main/java/org/dinky/controller/FlinkProxyController.java of the component Flink Proxy Controller. Performing a manipulation results in server-side request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in DataLinkDC dinky can lead to unauthorized internal network reconnaissance, access to sensitive internal services, and potential data exfiltration. Attackers could leverage this flaw to bypass firewalls or network segmentation by making the vulnerable server send requests to internal-only endpoints. This may expose metadata services, internal APIs, or administrative interfaces not directly accessible from the internet. Although the CVSS score is medium, the presence of a public exploit increases the likelihood of active exploitation attempts. Organizations relying on dinky as a proxy for Apache Flink or other backend services may face increased risk of lateral movement or information disclosure. The lack of vendor response and patches prolongs exposure, potentially affecting data confidentiality and network integrity. Availability impact is limited but could occur if attackers use SSRF to trigger resource exhaustion or denial-of-service conditions on internal services. Overall, the vulnerability poses a moderate risk that could escalate if combined with other weaknesses or insider threats.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Mar 2026, 18:49 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats