VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30832: charmbracelet soft-serve · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects charmbracelet soft-serveSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical : upgrade to 0.11.4 as a priority.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

Contested

Critical score, yet low EPSS after six months

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.11.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: 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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 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 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

Upgrade soft-serve and charmbracelet/soft-serve to 0.11.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
charmbraceletsoft-serve	Affected >=0.6.0 <0.11.4	Fixed in 0.11.4
GitHubcharmbracelet/soft-serve`pkg:github/charmbracelet/soft-serve`Other threats	Affected <0.11.4 >=0.6.0	Fixed in 0.11.4

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 all affected soft-serve instances to version 0.11.4 or later, where the vulnerability has been patched. In addition to patching, organizations should enforce strict SSH access controls, including multi-factor authentication and monitoring of SSH sessions to detect suspicious activities. Network segmentation should be reviewed to limit the ability of internal services to be accessed via the Git server, and outbound HTTP requests from the soft-serve server should be restricted or monitored to detect anomalous behavior. Implementing web application firewalls (WAFs) or intrusion detection systems (IDS) that can identify SSRF patterns may provide additional defense layers. Regular audits of user privileges and repository import operations can help detect misuse. If upgrading immediately is not feasible, consider disabling the LFS import functionality or restricting its use to trusted users only. Logging and alerting on unusual LFS endpoint URLs or unexpected HTTP requests originating from the soft-serve server can aid in early detection of exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should educate developers and administrators about the risks of SSRF and the importance of applying security updates promptly.

Description

Soft Serve is a self-hostable Git server for the command line. From version 0.6.0 to before version 0.11.4, an authenticated SSH user can force the server to make HTTP requests to internal/private IP addresses by running repo import with a crafted --lfs-endpoint URL. The initial batch request is blind (the response from a metadata endpoint won't parse as valid LFS JSON), but an attacker hosting a fake LFS server can chain this into full read access to internal services by returning download URLs that point at internal targets. This issue has been patched in version 0.11.4.

Impact

This SSRF vulnerability can have severe consequences for organizations using soft-serve as their self-hosted Git server. Attackers with authenticated SSH access can exploit this flaw to access internal services that are typically protected by network segmentation or firewalls, potentially exposing sensitive internal data, configuration files, or credentials. This can lead to lateral movement within the network, further compromise of internal systems, and data breaches. The ability to read internal services undermines confidentiality and can also affect integrity if attackers leverage the access to manipulate internal resources indirectly. Availability may be impacted if internal services are overwhelmed or manipulated through crafted requests. Organizations relying on soft-serve for source code management and internal DevOps workflows face risks of intellectual property theft, disruption of development processes, and exposure of internal infrastructure details. Since the vulnerability requires authenticated SSH access, the risk is heightened in environments with weak access controls, compromised user credentials, or insider threats. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not diminish the urgency of remediation given the critical CVSS rating and potential impact.

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, 19:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats