VulnerabilityPublished 12 May 2026

CVE-2026-42175: saleor requests-hardened · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects saleor requests-hardenedSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 1.2.1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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 12 May 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 saleor requests-hardened to 1.2.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
saleorrequests-hardened	Affected <1.2.1	Fixed in 1.2.1
PyPIrequests-hardened`pkg:pypi/requests-hardened`Other threats	Affected <1.2.1	Fixed in 1.2.1

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

AI-suggested

A fix is available in requests-hardened version 1.2.1. Users and administrators should upgrade to this version to mitigate the SSRF bypass vulnerability. Since this is a cloud service, the vendor manages remediation for the hosted environment; users should verify with the vendor that the service is updated accordingly. Patch status is confirmed as fixed in version 1.2.1. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

CVE-2026-42175 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the requests-hardened library used by saleor. The vulnerability arises because the SSRF protection in requests-hardened versions prior to 1.2.1 does not block IP addresses within the RFC 6598 Shared Address Space (100.64.0.0/10). This allows an attacker who can supply arbitrary URLs to potentially access internal services hosted within this IP range. This is particularly relevant in environments like AWS EKS where this CIDR range is commonly used for internal pod networking. The vulnerability is fixed in version 1.

Impact

The vulnerability allows attackers to bypass SSRF protections and access internal services within the 100.64.0.0/10 IP range. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information hosted on internal networks. The impact is environment-dependent and primarily affects deployments using this shared address space for internal networking, such as AWS EKS clusters. There is no indication of integrity or availability impact beyond the confidentiality risk. No known exploits are reported in the wild at this time.

Summary

The requests-hardened library, which enhances the Python requests library with additional security features, had an SSRF protection bypass for IP addresses in the RFC 6598 Shared Address Space (100.64.0.0/10) in versions before 1.2.1. Attackers able to control URLs passed to requests-hardened could exploit this to reach internal services within this IP range, which is commonly used in container orchestration environments such as AWS EKS. The impact depends on whether the affected CIDR is used in the deployment environment. The issue is resolved in requests-hardened version 1.2.1. The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.5 (medium severity) with network attack vector, high attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, unchanged scope, high confidentiality impact, low integrity impact, and no availability impact. The product is a cloud service, and the vendor manages remediation for this service.

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 19 May 2026, 18:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats