VulnerabilityPublished 31 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-4799: floragunn Search Guard FLX · Open Redirect

Affects floragunn Search Guard FLXSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 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 29 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
floragunnSearch Guard FLX	Affected >=1.0.0 <=4.0.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official patch is released, organizations should implement strict validation and sanitization of any URL parameters used for redirection within Search Guard FLX configurations or custom integrations. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious redirect attempts. Educate users to be cautious about clicking links from untrusted sources, especially those that appear to redirect externally. Monitor logs for unusual redirect patterns or spikes in user redirection events. If feasible, disable or restrict open redirect functionality in the application or proxy layer. Once a vendor patch is available, prioritize prompt deployment to eliminate the vulnerability. Additionally, consider implementing multi-factor authentication and enhanced phishing detection tools to reduce the impact of potential social engineering attacks facilitated by this vulnerability.

Description

In Search Guard FLX up to version 4.0.1, it is possible to use specially crafted requests to redirect the user to an untrusted URL.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is on the confidentiality of users interacting with Search Guard FLX-protected services. Attackers can leverage the open redirect to redirect users to malicious websites, potentially leading to phishing, credential harvesting, or malware infections. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise system integrity or availability, successful exploitation can undermine user trust and lead to secondary attacks against organizations. Given that no authentication is required and the attack vector is network-based, any user who clicks a malicious link is at risk. The scope is limited to environments using vulnerable versions of Search Guard FLX, which is a niche security plugin for Elasticsearch. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks. Organizations with public-facing Search Guard FLX deployments are most at risk, especially those with users less trained to recognize phishing attempts.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site (Open Redirect) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
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.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (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, 15:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats