VulnerabilityPublished 9 Apr 2026Updated 13 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-40089: sonicverse-eu audiostreaming-stack · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects sonicverse-eu audiostreaming-stackSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.9 Critical.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.9Critical

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

Contested

Critical score, yet low EPSS after six months

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 9 Apr 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
sonicverse-euaudiostreaming-stack	Affected =< cb1ddbacafcb441549fe87d3eeabdb6a085325e4	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

A fix is available and implemented in commit cb1ddbacafcb441549fe87d3eeabdb6a085325e4. Users should update their Sonicverse audiostreaming-stack installations to this commit or later to remediate the SSRF vulnerability. Since this is a self-hosted Docker Compose stack, operators must manually apply the update. No vendor advisory was provided to indicate alternative mitigations or that no action is required.

Description

Sonicverse is a Self-hosted Docker Compose stack for live radio streaming. The Sonicverse Radio Audio Streaming Stack dashboard contains a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in its API client (apps/dashboard/lib/api.ts). Installations created using the provided install.sh script (including the one‑liner bash <(curl -fsSL https://sonicverse.short.gy/install-audiostack)) are affected. In these deployments, the dashboard accepts user-controlled URLs and passes them directly to a server-side HTTP client without sufficient validation. An authenticated operator can abuse this to make arbitrary HTTP requests from the dashboard backend to internal or external systems. This vulnerability is fixed with commit cb1ddbacafcb441549fe87d3eeabdb6a085325e4.

Impact

An authenticated operator can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to make arbitrary HTTP requests from the backend server to internal or external systems. This can lead to unauthorized information disclosure, potential internal network scanning, or interaction with otherwise inaccessible services. The vulnerability severely impacts confidentiality and integrity, with a minor impact on availability.

Summary

Sonicverse audiostreaming-stack's dashboard API client improperly validates user-supplied URLs, enabling an authenticated operator to perform SSRF attacks. This allows the backend server to send arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or external systems, potentially exposing sensitive data or enabling further attacks. The vulnerability affects versions prior to commit cb1ddbacafcb441549fe87d3eeabdb6a085325e4. The CVSS 3.1 score of 9.9 reflects network attack vector, low attack complexity, required privileges, no user interaction, and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and low impact on availability.

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

github.com/sonicverse-eu/audiostreaming-stack/security/advisories/GHSA-8vvj-7f7r-7v48 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Apr 2026, 11:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats