VulnerabilityPublished 31 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-34162: labring FastGPT · Missing Authentication

Affects labring FastGPTSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 10.0 Critical : upgrade to 4.14.9.5 as a priority.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

10.0Critical

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 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.14.9.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 31 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 FastGPT and labring/FastGPT to 4.14.9.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
labringFastGPT	Affected <4.14.9.5	Fixed in 4.14.9.5
GitHublabring/FastGPT`pkg:github/labring/FastGPT`Other threats	Affected <4.14.9.5	Fixed in 4.14.9.5

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-2026-34162, organizations should immediately upgrade FastGPT to version 4.14.9.5 or later, where the authentication issue has been fixed. Until the upgrade is applied, organizations should implement network-level access controls to restrict access to the /api/core/app/httpTools/runTool endpoint, limiting it to trusted administrators or internal IP addresses only. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block anomalous proxy-like requests targeting this endpoint. Monitor logs for unusual or unexpected HTTP requests originating from the FastGPT server, especially those containing arbitrary URLs or headers. Conduct internal network segmentation to minimize the impact of potential SSRF exploitation. Additionally, review and harden other API endpoints for proper authentication and authorization to prevent similar issues. Educate development and security teams about the risks of exposing proxy functionality without authentication. Finally, implement comprehensive incident response plans to quickly detect and respond to exploitation attempts.

Description

FastGPT is an AI Agent building platform. Prior to version 4.14.9.5, the FastGPT HTTP tools testing endpoint (/api/core/app/httpTools/runTool) is exposed without any authentication. This endpoint acts as a full HTTP proxy — it accepts a user-supplied baseUrl, toolPath, HTTP method, custom headers, and body, then makes a server-side HTTP request and returns the complete response to the caller. This issue has been patched in version 4.14.9.5.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2026-34162 is severe for organizations using vulnerable versions of FastGPT. Attackers can exploit the unauthenticated proxy endpoint to perform arbitrary HTTP requests from the server, potentially accessing sensitive internal systems and data that are otherwise protected by network segmentation or firewalls. This can lead to unauthorized data disclosure, internal network reconnaissance, and lateral movement within an organization's infrastructure. The ability to manipulate request headers and bodies increases the risk of exploiting other internal services or APIs. Additionally, attackers could use the proxy to anonymize their traffic, complicating incident response and attribution. The vulnerability also poses a risk of service disruption if abused to flood internal or external resources. Given FastGPT's role as an AI agent platform, compromise could extend to manipulation or leakage of AI model data, user inputs, or outputs, impacting confidentiality and integrity of AI-driven processes. Overall, the vulnerability threatens confidentiality, integrity, and availability, making it critical for organizations to remediate promptly.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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 31 Mar 2026, 14:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306, CWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats