VulnerabilityPublished 23 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-33502: WWBN AVideo · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects WWBN AVideoSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.3 Critical.

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

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 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

Affected software

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

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-2026-33502, organizations should immediately update WWBN AVideo to a version that includes the patch (post-26.0) addressing the SSRF vulnerability. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement network-level controls to restrict outbound HTTP requests from the AVideo server, limiting them to trusted destinations only. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block SSRF patterns targeting the vulnerable endpoint. Disable or restrict access to the plugin/Live/test.php script if it is not required for operational purposes. Additionally, enforce strict cloud metadata service protections, such as using Instance Metadata Service Version 2 (IMDSv2) on AWS or equivalent protections on other cloud platforms, to prevent unauthorized metadata access. Conduct internal network segmentation to isolate the AVideo server from sensitive internal services. Monitor logs for unusual outbound HTTP requests originating from the AVideo server to detect potential exploitation attempts. Finally, educate development and security teams about SSRF risks and secure coding practices to prevent similar vulnerabilities in the future.

Description

CVE-2026-33502 is a critical Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in WWBN AVideo versions up to 26.0. It allows unauthenticated remote attackers to make the server send arbitrary HTTP requests via the vulnerable plugin/Live/test.php endpoint. This can be exploited to access internal network services, including localhost and cloud metadata endpoints, potentially exposing sensitive data. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 9.3, indicating high impact on confidentiality with no authentication or user interaction required. A patch has been committed to fix this issue. Organizations running affected versions of AVideo should prioritize updating to the patched version to mitigate risk. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild, but the ease of exploitation and potential impact make this a critical threat to video platform deployments.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-33502 is significant for organizations using WWBN AVideo versions up to 26.0. Exploitation allows attackers to bypass perimeter defenses by leveraging the server as a proxy to access internal services that are not exposed externally. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, including internal APIs, databases, or cloud metadata endpoints that contain credentials or configuration data. Compromise of cloud metadata services can enable attackers to escalate privileges, move laterally, or exfiltrate data from cloud environments. Although the vulnerability does not directly impact availability or integrity, the confidentiality breach alone can have severe consequences such as data leaks, account takeover, and further network compromise. The lack of authentication and user interaction requirements lowers the barrier to exploitation, increasing the risk of widespread attacks. Organizations with AVideo deployments in sensitive or regulated environments face heightened risks, especially if internal network segmentation is weak or cloud environments are used without strict metadata access controls.

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 30 Mar 2026, 20:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats