VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026Updated 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32096: useplunk plunk · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects useplunk plunkSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical : upgrade to 0.7.0 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.3Critical

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

Contested

Critical score, yet low EPSS after six months

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 0.7.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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: 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: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, 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 plunk and useplunk/plunk to 0.7.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
useplunkplunk	Affected <0.7.0	Fixed in 0.7.0
GitHubuseplunk/plunk`pkg:github/useplunk/plunk`Other threats	Affected <0.7.0	Fixed in 0.7.0

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-2026-32096, organizations should immediately upgrade Plunk to version 0.7.0 or later, where the SSRF vulnerability has been fixed. Beyond patching, it is critical to implement strict egress filtering on the Plunk server to restrict outbound HTTP requests only to trusted destinations, thereby limiting the potential for SSRF exploitation. Network segmentation should be enforced to isolate the Plunk server from sensitive internal resources and cloud metadata endpoints. Additionally, monitoring and logging of webhook traffic and outbound requests should be enhanced to detect anomalous or unexpected request patterns indicative of SSRF attempts. Employing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection capabilities can provide an additional layer of defense. Reviewing and hardening the SNS webhook handler code and input validation mechanisms can prevent malformed requests from triggering unintended behavior. Finally, organizations should conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on SSRF vectors to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively.

Description

CVE-2026-32096 is a critical Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability affecting versions of the open-source email platform Plunk prior to 0.7.0. The flaw exists in the SNS webhook handler, allowing unauthenticated attackers to craft requests that force the server to perform arbitrary HTTP GET requests to any reachable host. This can lead to significant confidentiality breaches as attackers may access internal resources or sensitive data. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.3, reflecting its high impact and ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction. Although no known exploits are currently reported in the wild, organizations using affected versions should urgently upgrade to Plunk 0.7.0 or later.

Impact

The SSRF vulnerability in Plunk can have severe consequences for organizations worldwide. By exploiting this flaw, attackers can bypass network segmentation and firewall protections to access internal services that are otherwise inaccessible externally. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information such as internal APIs, cloud instance metadata (e.g., AWS IAM credentials), or private databases. The confidentiality impact is high, as attackers may retrieve sensitive data or leverage the SSRF to pivot deeper into the network. The integrity impact is moderate since attackers can influence some server behavior by triggering outbound requests, potentially leading to partial data manipulation or reconnaissance. Availability is not directly impacted by this vulnerability. Given that exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction, the attack surface is broad, increasing the likelihood of successful attacks. Organizations relying on Plunk for email processing and notification workflows are at risk of data breaches and subsequent operational disruptions. The vulnerability also poses a risk to cloud environments where Plunk is deployed, as SSRF can be used to access cloud metadata services and escalate privileges. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not diminish the urgency for remediation.

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 19 Mar 2026, 02:19 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats