VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026Updated 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-31959: anchore quill · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects anchore quillSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 0.7.1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.7.1

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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 11 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 quill and anchore/quill to 0.7.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
anchorequill	Affected <0.7.1	Fixed in 0.7.1
GitHubanchore/quill`pkg:github/anchore/quill`Other threats	Affected <0.7.1	Fixed in 0.7.1

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade all instances of Anchore Quill to version 0.7.1 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability is fixed. For environments where upgrading is not immediately possible, implement network-level controls to restrict outbound HTTP/HTTPS requests from systems running Quill to only trusted endpoints, preventing arbitrary URL access. Review and harden TLS interception proxies to ensure they do not improperly intercept or modify Apple's notarization API traffic. Validate and monitor certificate authorities in use to detect any compromise or unauthorized certificates. Employ network segmentation to limit access from notarization clients to sensitive internal resources. Additionally, consider implementing application-layer URL validation or sandboxing around Quill's network requests if custom modifications are feasible. Monitor logs for unusual outbound requests from Quill clients that could indicate exploitation attempts. Finally, educate security teams about the risk of SSRF in notarization tooling and incorporate this vulnerability into threat modeling and incident response plans.

Description

CVE-2026-31959 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Anchore's Quill tool prior to version 0.7.1. Quill fetches Apple notarization submission logs by following URLs provided in Apple's API responses without validating the URL scheme or host address. An attacker capable of tampering with these API responses—possible in environments with TLS interception, compromised CAs, or trust boundary violations—can supply arbitrary URLs, causing Quill to make HTTP(S) requests to attacker-controlled or internal network resources. This may lead to exfiltration of sensitive data such as cloud credentials or internal service information. Both the Quill CLI and library are affected. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 5.3 (medium severity) and requires network-level manipulation of API responses, which is non-trivial under normal conditions. The issue is fixed in Quill version 0.

Impact

This SSRF vulnerability can lead to unauthorized internal network scanning and data exfiltration from systems running vulnerable versions of Quill. Organizations using Quill for macOS notarization in environments with TLS interception or compromised trust stores are at risk of attackers leveraging this flaw to access sensitive internal resources or credentials. The impact is primarily confidentiality loss, as attackers may retrieve sensitive data from internal services or cloud credentials. Integrity and availability impacts are minimal or not directly indicated. Because exploitation requires the ability to modify API responses, the attack complexity is high, limiting widespread exploitation under normal network conditions. However, in corporate or high-security environments where TLS interception proxies are common, the risk is elevated. The vulnerability affects both CLI users and automated systems using the Quill library, potentially impacting CI/CD pipelines and automated notarization workflows. Organizations relying on Quill for notarization processes may face operational risks if sensitive internal resources are exposed or credentials are compromised.

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/anchore/quill/security/advisories/GHSA-7q3q-5px6-4c5p (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Mar 2026, 02:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats