VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30953: Kovah LinkAce · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Kovah LinkAceSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% 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 10 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
KovahLinkAce	Affected <=2.0.0	Fixed in–
GitHubkovah/linkace`pkg:github/kovah/linkace`Other threats	Affected <=2.0.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-30953, organizations should upgrade LinkAce to a version where the NoPrivateIpRule validation is correctly applied to all URL fetch operations, especially the primary link creation endpoint. If an official patch is not yet available, administrators should implement custom input validation to block URLs resolving to private IP ranges, Docker hostnames, and known cloud metadata endpoints before processing them. Network-level controls such as firewall rules or egress filtering can be employed to restrict the LinkAce server from making outbound HTTP requests to internal IP ranges and cloud metadata IP addresses (e.g., 169.254.169.254). Additionally, running LinkAce with the least privileges necessary and isolating it in a segmented network zone can reduce the risk of lateral movement if exploited. Monitoring logs for unusual outbound requests from the LinkAce server may help detect exploitation attempts. Finally, educating users about the risks of submitting internal URLs and enforcing strict access controls on the LinkAce application will further reduce exposure.

Description

LinkAce is a self-hosted archive to collect website links. When a user creates a link via POST /links, the server fetches HTML metadata from the provided URL (LinkRepository::create() calls HtmlMeta::getFromUrl()). The LinkStoreRequest validation rules do not include NoPrivateIpRule, allowing server-side requests to internal network addresses, Docker service hostnames, and cloud metadata endpoints. The project already has a NoPrivateIpRule class (app/Rules/NoPrivateIpRule.php) but it is only applied in FetchController.php (line 99), not in the primary link creation path.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in LinkAce can have severe consequences for organizations. By exploiting this flaw, attackers can make the vulnerable server perform unauthorized HTTP requests to internal network services that are otherwise inaccessible externally. This can lead to exposure of sensitive internal endpoints such as Docker service APIs, internal management consoles, and cloud metadata services that often contain credentials or tokens. Disclosure of such information can facilitate further attacks including privilege escalation, data exfiltration, and lateral movement within the network. Since LinkAce is often deployed in self-hosted environments, including enterprises and service providers, the risk extends to any organization using this software without patching. The vulnerability's exploitation could compromise confidentiality without affecting integrity or availability directly, but the resulting information leakage can enable more damaging attacks. The requirement for low privileges means that even non-administrative users or compromised accounts can leverage this flaw, increasing the attack surface. Overall, the impact is high, especially in cloud or containerized environments where metadata endpoints are critical.

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

github.com/Kovah/LinkAce/security/advisories/GHSA-f2mp-q78r-7jx7 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Mar 2026, 20:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats