VulnerabilityPublished 20 Mar 2026Updated 25 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-33126: blakeblackshear frigate · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects blakeblackshear frigateSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.0 Medium : upgrade to 0.16.3 when convenient.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.16.3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 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 1 Nov 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 frigate and blakeblackshear/frigate to 0.16.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
blakeblackshearfrigate	Affected <0.16.3	Fixed in 0.16.3
GitHubblakeblackshear/frigate`pkg:github/blakeblackshear/frigate`Other threats	Affected <0.16.3	Fixed in 0.16.3

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade Frigate to version 0.16.3 or later, where the SSRF vulnerability has been patched with proper URL validation. Until upgrading is possible, restrict access to the /ffprobe endpoint to trusted users and networks only, using network segmentation, firewall rules, or API access controls. Implement strict authentication and authorization mechanisms to ensure only authorized personnel can interact with Frigate's API endpoints. Monitor logs for unusual or unexpected requests to the /ffprobe endpoint that may indicate exploitation attempts. Additionally, consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block SSRF patterns. For cloud deployments, restrict metadata service access using instance metadata service version 2 (IMDSv2) or equivalent protections to reduce risk from SSRF attacks. Regularly audit and update all components of the video surveillance infrastructure to minimize exposure to known vulnerabilities.

Description

Frigate is a network video recorder (NVR) with realtime local object detection for IP cameras. Prior to version 0.16.3, the /ffprobe endpoint accepts arbitrary user-controlled URLs without proper validation, allowing Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) attacks. An attacker can use the Frigate server to make HTTP requests to internal network resources, cloud metadata services, or perform port scanning. This issue has been patched in version 0.16.3.

Impact

The primary impact of this SSRF vulnerability is the potential exposure of internal network resources and cloud metadata services to attackers who can interact with the vulnerable Frigate instance. This can lead to unauthorized information disclosure, such as internal IP addresses, service endpoints, and sensitive metadata that could include credentials or tokens. Attackers may use this information to pivot within the network, escalate privileges, or launch further targeted attacks. For organizations relying on Frigate for video surveillance, this could compromise the confidentiality and integrity of their internal infrastructure. While the vulnerability does not directly cause denial of service or data corruption, the reconnaissance capabilities it enables can significantly increase the attack surface. The medium CVSS score reflects the moderate risk due to the requirement for some privileges and the lack of direct impact on availability or confidentiality. However, in environments where Frigate is exposed to untrusted users or integrated with critical internal systems, the risk is elevated.

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 27 Mar 2026, 22:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats