VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-48782: pydantic-ai · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects pydantic-aiSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 2.0.0b3 or 1.102.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.0.0b3, 1.102.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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: 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 16 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 pydantic-ai and pydantic-ai-slim to 2.0.0b3 or 1.102.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
pydanticpydantic-ai	Affected >=2.0.0b1 <2.0.0b3	Fixed in 2.0.0b3
pydanticpydantic-ai	Affected >=1.56.0 <1.102.0	Fixed in 1.102.0
pydanticpydantic-ai-slim	Affected >=2.0.0b1 <2.0.0b3	Fixed in 2.0.0b3
pydanticpydantic-ai-slim	Affected >=1.56.0 <1.102.0	Fixed in 1.102.0
PyPIpydantic-ai`pkg:pypi/pydantic-ai`Other threats	Affected >=1.56.0 <=1.101.0 =2.0.0	Fixed in–

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 pydantic-ai version 2.0.0b3. Users should upgrade to this version to remediate the vulnerability. No official remediation level is stated, but the vendor has addressed the issue in the specified version. Until upgrading, avoid enabling force_download='allow-local' on networks routing the affected IPv6 transition forms.

Description

## Summary When an application using Pydantic AI opts a URL into `force_download='allow-local'` (which disables the default block on private/internal IPs) **and runs on a network that routes the affected IPv6 transition forms (NAT64- or ISATAP-configured networks)**, the cloud-metadata blocklist could be bypassed by encoding the metadata IP in an IPv6 transition form that the previous fix did not decode — IPv4-compatible IPv6 (`::a.b.c.d`), the NAT64 RFC 8215 local-use prefix (`64:ff9b:1::/48`), operator-chosen NAT64 prefixes, or ISATAP. The IPv6 wrapper is then delivered to the underlying IPv4 metadata endpoint, exposing cloud IAM short-term credentials. **The bypass is exploitable only in environments whose network actually routes these forms** — NAT64-configured networks (IPv6-only or dual-stack-with-NAT64 deployments, including some Kubernetes setups) for the NAT64 variants, or networks with an ISATAP tunnel for ISATAP. A standard dual-stack cloud VM or container does not route them and is not affected in practice. The IPv4-compatible and Teredo variants are deprecated and addressed as defense-in-depth. This is an incomplete fix of [GHSA-cqp8-fcvh-x7r3](https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-ai/security/advisories/GHSA-cqp8-fcvh-x7r3) / [CVE-2026-46678](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-46678) (itself a follow-up to [CVE-2026-25580](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25580)). The prior remediation decoded only IPv4-mapped IPv6, 6to4, and the NAT64 well-known prefix; the metadata guarantee did not hold for the remaining transition forms. ## Severity **MEDIUM** — `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N` = **6.8** Same impact metrics and narrow attack surface as the parent advisory (AC:H): exploitation requires the application to have opted into `allow-local` on a URL influenced by untrusted input, and the NAT64/ISATAP variants additionally require the deployment network to route those forms. **CWE-918**: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) ## Affected Versions | Package | Vulnerable | Patched | |---|---|---| | `pydantic-ai` | `>= 1.56.0, < 1.102.0`; `>= 2.0.0b1, < 2.0.0b3` | `1.102.0`; `2.0.0b3` | | `pydantic-ai-slim` | `>= 1.56.0, < 1.102.0`; `>= 2.0.0b1, < 2.0.0b3` | `1.102.0`; `2.0.0b3` | These transition forms have not been decoded since SSRF protection was introduced in `1.56.0`. ## Who Is Affected Users are affected **only if** their application explicitly opts a `FileUrl` (`ImageUrl`, `AudioUrl`, `VideoUrl`, `DocumentUrl`) into `force_download='allow-local'` on a URL that is, or could be, influenced by untrusted input. Beyond that precondition, the affected encodings only reach a metadata endpoint in environments whose network actually routes them. The broadly-routable IPv4-mapped form was addressed in `1.99.0` (CVE-2026-46678); the additional forms addressed here require a **NAT64-configured network** (IPv6-only or dual-stack-with-NAT64 deployments, including some Kubernetes setups) for the NAT64 variants, or an **ISATAP tunnel** for the ISATAP variant. The IPv4-compatible and Teredo forms are deprecated and not routed by modern stacks; they are addressed as defense-in-depth. Most deployments on a standard dual-stack cloud VM or container are therefore not exploitable in practice, but the fix restores the "always blocked" guarantee for the environments that are. Users are **not** affected if they use any of the bundled integrations to ingest user input, because they do not propagate `force_download` from external data: - `Agent.to_web` / `clai web` - `VercelAIAdapter` - `AGUIAdapter` / `Agent.to_ag_ui` Applications that only download from developer-controlled URLs are not affected. ## Remediation Upgrade to `1.102.0` or later (or `2.0.0b3` or later on the 2.0 pre-release line). The cloud-metadata and private-IP blocklists now decode the embedded IPv4 of every standardized IPv6 transition form before evaluating it — IPv4-mapped, IPv4-compatible, 6to4, NAT64 across all prefix lengths (including the RFC 8215 local-use prefix and operator-chosen prefixes), ISATAP, and Teredo. The set of always-blocked cloud metadata/credential endpoints has also been expanded across providers. ## Workaround for Unpatched Versions Avoid passing `force_download='allow-local'` on any URL that could be influenced by untrusted input. If developers must, resolve the hostname themselves and validate the result against their own metadata blocklist — including IPv6 transition forms — before constructing the `FileUrl`. ## Credits Reported by [@SnailSploit](https://snailsploit.com).

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 24 Jun 2026, 16:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats