VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-48764: baptisteArno typebot.io · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects baptisteArno typebot.ioSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 3.17.2 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 20:25 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.17.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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 17 Jun 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 typebot.io and baptistearno/typebot.io to 3.17.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
baptisteArnotypebot.io	Affected <3.17.2	Fixed in 3.17.2
GitHubbaptistearno/typebot.io`pkg:github/baptistearno/typebot.io`Other threats	Affected <3.17.2	Fixed in 3.17.2

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade TypeBot to version 3.17.2 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability is fixed. Patch status is not explicitly stated beyond the fix in 3.17.2, so applying this update is the recommended remediation. No vendor advisory content is provided to indicate alternative mitigations or temporary fixes.

Description

TypeBot is a chatbot builder tool. In versions prior to 3.17.2, SSRF validation is implemented by resolving a hostname once and checking whether the resolved IP belongs to a forbidden range allowing for DNS rebinding bypass. The root cause is a time-of-check to time-of-use gap in the SSRF guard. The validator resolves the hostname and approves it, but the later request path performs a fresh resolution and connects to whatever IP the hostname maps to at that moment. The actual outbound request is then performed later using the original hostname, without pinning the validated IP to the network connection. An attacker who can supply a URL to a public bot that performs a server-side HTTP Request block or server-side script fetch can use DNS rebinding to pass the initial validation and still force the server to connect to a private or metadata address during the real request. This enables server-side access to private network services, cloud metadata endpoints, and other internal HTTP targets that the validator was intended to block. The exact downstream impact depends on the reachable internal services. Concrete consequences include metadata disclosure, access to internal admin panels, credential theft from metadata services, and further compromise through internal-only HTTP interfaces. This issue has been fixed in version 3.17.2.

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to bypass SSRF protections and make the server perform HTTP requests to internal network services or cloud metadata endpoints. This can lead to disclosure of sensitive metadata, access to internal admin panels, credential theft, and further internal compromise. The impact depends on the internal services accessible from the server but includes high confidentiality risk and potential privilege escalation.

Summary

TypeBot.io versions before 3.17.2 implement SSRF validation by resolving a hostname once and checking if the resolved IP is in a forbidden range. However, the actual outbound request performs a fresh DNS resolution without pinning the IP to the validated address, creating a TOCTOU gap. An attacker can exploit this by supplying a URL that passes initial validation but resolves to internal or metadata IPs at request time via DNS rebinding. This enables unauthorized server-side access to internal HTTP services, cloud metadata endpoints, and potentially sensitive internal resources. The vulnerability is identified as CWE-918 and has a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.2 (high severity). It is fixed in version 3.17.2.

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 18 Jun 2026, 00:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats