VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-33039: WWBN AVideo · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects WWBN AVideoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High : upgrade to 26.0 soon.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 08:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 26.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 20 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 AVideo and wwbn/AVideo to 26.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
WWBNAVideo	Affected <26.0	Fixed in 26.0
GitHubwwbn/AVideo`pkg:github/wwbn/AVideo`Other threats	Affected <26.0	Fixed in 26.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade WWBN AVideo to version 26.0 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by proper validation of redirect URLs.
Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict the AVideo server's outbound access to internal services, especially cloud metadata endpoints and RFC1918 address ranges.
Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious SSRF patterns or unusual redirect chains targeting internal IPs.
Monitor application logs for unusual proxy.php requests that include URLs causing redirects to internal addresses.
If immediate upgrade is not possible, consider disabling or restricting access to the vulnerable proxy.php endpoint to trusted users only.
Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on SSRF vectors in web applications.
Educate developers and administrators about SSRF risks and secure URL validation techniques, including validating all redirect targets, not just initial URLs.

Description

WWBN AVideo is an open source video platform. In versions 25.0 and below, the plugin/LiveLinks/proxy.php endpoint validates user-supplied URLs against internal/private networks using isSSRFSafeURL(), but only checks the initial URL. When the initial URL responds with an HTTP redirect (Location header), the redirect target is fetched via fakeBrowser() without re-validation, allowing an attacker to reach internal services (cloud metadata, RFC1918 addresses) through an attacker-controlled redirect. This issue is fixed in version 26.0.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-33039 is the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive internal information due to SSRF exploitation. Attackers can leverage this vulnerability to access internal services that are normally protected behind firewalls, such as cloud metadata endpoints that may contain credentials, tokens, or configuration data. This can lead to further compromise of cloud infrastructure or internal networks. Since the vulnerability does not require authentication or user interaction, it can be exploited remotely by unauthenticated attackers. Organizations running vulnerable versions of AVideo risk exposure of confidential data, which can facilitate lateral movement, privilege escalation, or data exfiltration. The scope of impact is significant for any deployment exposing the vulnerable endpoint to untrusted users or the internet. However, the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, limiting the impact to confidentiality breaches. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially given the public disclosure and high CVSS score.

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 20 Mar 2026, 06:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats