VulnerabilityPublished 24 Apr 2026Updated 25 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-31955: xibosignage xibo-cms · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects xibosignage xibo-cmsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.9 Medium : upgrade to 4.4.1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.4.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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 24 Apr 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 xibo-cms and xibosignage/xibo-cms to 4.4.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
xibosignagexibo-cms	Affected <4.4.1	Fixed in 4.4.1
GitHubxibosignage/xibo-cms`pkg:github/xibosignage/xibo-cms`Other threats	Affected <4.4.1	Fixed in 4.4.1

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

AI-suggested

A fixed version 4.4.1 of xibo-cms is available and upgrading to this version is necessary to remediate the vulnerability. Since xibo-cms is a cloud-hosted service, the vendor manages remediation server-side, so users should verify with the vendor that their instance is updated. For users unable to upgrade immediately, it is recommended to revoke DataSet permissions from any users who are not fully trusted, as these privileges are required to exploit the vulnerability. No additional mitigations are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

Xibo is an open source digital signage platform with a web content management system and Windows display player software. An authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in versions prior to 4.4.1 allows users with DataSet permissions to make arbitrary HTTP requests from the CMS server to internal or external network resources. This can be exploited to scan internal infrastructure, access local cloud metadata endpoints (e.g., AWS IMDS), interact with internal services that lack authentication, or exfiltrate data. Exploitation of the vulnerability is possible on behalf of an authorized user who has both of the following privileges, which are not granted to non-admins as standard: Include "Add DataSet" button to allow for additional DataSets to be created independently to Layouts. Users should upgrade to version 4.4.1 which fixes this issue. Upgrading to a fixed version is necessary to remediate. Users unable to upgrade should revoke such privileges from users they do not trust.

Impact

An authenticated user with DataSet permissions can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to make arbitrary HTTP requests from the CMS server. This can lead to unauthorized access to internal network resources, cloud metadata endpoints (e.g., AWS IMDS), and unauthenticated internal services, potentially resulting in data exposure. The vulnerability does not impact confidentiality of data directly on the CMS but can be used as a pivot to gather sensitive information from internal infrastructure. The CVSS score of 4.9 reflects a medium severity impact with high confidentiality impact but no integrity or availability impact.

Summary

Xibo-cms versions prior to 4.4.1 contain an authenticated SSRF vulnerability (CWE-918) exploitable by users with DataSet permissions. This flaw allows these users to induce the CMS server to perform arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or external network resources, which can be leveraged to access sensitive internal services or cloud metadata endpoints. The vulnerability requires elevated privileges not typically granted to non-admin users. The vendor has released version 4.4.1 to fix this issue. Since xibo-cms is a cloud service, the vendor manages remediation server-side. Users should upgrade to 4.4.1 or restrict DataSet permissions to trusted users to mitigate risk.

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 1 May 2026, 20:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats