VulnerabilityPublished 23 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-32279: opensource-workshop connect-cms · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects opensource-workshop connect-cmsSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 2.41.1 or 1.41.1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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 2.41.1, 1.41.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: 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: 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 23 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 connect-cms and opensource-workshop/connect-cms to 2.41.1 or 1.41.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
opensource-workshopconnect-cms	Affected >=2.0.0 <2.41.1	Fixed in 2.41.1
opensource-workshopconnect-cms	Affected <1.41.1	Fixed in 1.41.1
GitHubopensource-workshop/connect-cms`pkg:github/opensource-workshop/connect-cms`Other threats	Affected <1.41.1 <2.41.1	Fixed in 1.41.1 2.41.1

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-2026-32279, organizations should immediately upgrade Connect-CMS installations to versions 1.41.1 or 2.41.1 or later, where the SSRF vulnerability has been patched. In addition to patching, administrators should review and restrict access to the Page Management Plugin’s external page migration feature, limiting its use to trusted administrators only. Implement strict network segmentation and firewall rules to prevent the Connect-CMS server from making unauthorized outbound requests to internal or sensitive network segments. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection capabilities to monitor and block suspicious outbound requests originating from the CMS server. Conduct regular audits of user privileges to ensure that only necessary users have high-level access, reducing the risk of insider exploitation. Monitoring logs for unusual server-side request patterns can help detect attempted SSRF exploitation. Finally, consider disabling or restricting the external page migration feature if it is not essential to operational workflows, thereby reducing the attack surface.

Description

Connect-CMS is a content management system. In versions on the 1.x series up to and including 1.41.0 and versions on the 2.x series up to and including 2.41.0, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) issue exists in the external page migration feature of the Page Management Plugin. Versions 1.41.1 and 2.41.1 contain a patch.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-32279 is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive internal information due to SSRF exploitation. Attackers with authenticated high privileges can coerce the Connect-CMS server to send crafted HTTP requests to internal systems, potentially accessing internal APIs, metadata services, or other protected resources that are not exposed externally. This can lead to leakage of confidential data, including credentials, configuration details, or internal network topology. While the vulnerability does not directly affect data integrity or system availability, the information gained can facilitate further attacks such as lateral movement, privilege escalation, or targeted intrusions. Organizations using affected versions of Connect-CMS in environments with sensitive internal infrastructure or cloud metadata endpoints are at higher risk. The requirement for authenticated high privileges limits exploitation to insiders or compromised accounts, but the risk remains significant in environments where privilege management is weak. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited current exploitation but does not preclude future attacks, especially as the vulnerability becomes more widely known.

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 23 Mar 2026, 22:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats