VulnerabilityPublished 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32110: siyuan · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects siyuanSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High : upgrade to 3.6.0 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.3High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 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 siyuan and siyuan-note/siyuan to 3.6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
siyuan-notesiyuan	Affected <3.6.0	Fixed in 3.6.0
GitHubsiyuan-note/siyuan`pkg:github/siyuan-note/siyuan`Other threats	Affected <3.6.0	Fixed in 3.6.0

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-2026-32110, organizations should immediately upgrade siyuan-note to version 3.6.0 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Until upgrade is possible, restrict access to the /api/network/forwardProxy endpoint by enforcing strict authentication and authorization controls, ensuring only trusted users can access it. Implement network-level controls such as firewall rules or web application firewalls (WAF) to block requests targeting internal IP ranges, localhost addresses, and known cloud metadata service IPs from the siyuan-note server. Conduct thorough credential audits and enforce strong authentication mechanisms to reduce the risk posed by compromised accounts. Monitor logs for unusual proxy request patterns or attempts to access internal resources via the forwardProxy endpoint. Additionally, consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) solutions that can detect and block SSRF attempts. Finally, educate developers and administrators about SSRF risks and secure coding practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities in future.

Description

CVE-2026-32110 is a high-severity Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the siyuan-note personal knowledge management system versions prior to 3.6.0. Authenticated users can exploit the /api/network/forwardProxy endpoint to make arbitrary HTTP requests from the server without URL validation, allowing access to internal networks, localhost, or cloud metadata services. This can lead to disclosure of sensitive internal information, compromise of confidentiality and integrity, and limited availability impact. The vulnerability requires authentication but no user interaction beyond that. It is fixed in version 3.6.0. Organizations using affected versions should upgrade immediately and restrict access to the vulnerable endpoint.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-32110 is substantial for organizations using affected versions of siyuan-note. Exploitation allows attackers to bypass network segmentation and access internal services that are otherwise inaccessible externally, including sensitive internal APIs, databases, or cloud metadata services that can expose credentials or configuration data. This can lead to data breaches, unauthorized privilege escalation, and further compromise of internal infrastructure. The confidentiality and integrity of internal systems are at high risk, while availability impact is limited but possible if internal services are disrupted. Organizations relying on siyuan-note for knowledge management may face operational disruptions and reputational damage if sensitive internal information is exposed. The requirement for authentication limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with weak credential management or insider threats. Given the growing adoption of cloud services, the ability to access cloud metadata services via SSRF can enable attackers to obtain temporary credentials and pivot to broader cloud infrastructure compromise.

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/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-56cv-c5p2-j2wg (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Mar 2026, 02:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats