VulnerabilityPublished 15 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-55591: signalk-server · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects signalk-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium : upgrade to 2.28.0 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 20:25 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.28.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 15 Sep 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 signalk-server and signalk/signalk-server to 2.28.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SignalKsignalk-server	Affected <2.28.0	Fixed in 2.28.0
GitHubsignalk/signalk-server`pkg:github/signalk/signalk-server`Other threats	Affected <2.28.0	Fixed in 2.28.0

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in SignalK signalk-server version 2.28.0. Users should upgrade to version 2.28.0 or later to remediate this issue. Until the upgrade is applied, configuring security to enable authentication and validation on the affected endpoints can reduce exposure. Patch status is confirmed fixed in 2.28.0.

Description

Signal K Server is a server application that runs on a central hub in a boat. Prior to 2.28.0, makeRemoteRequest() in src/serverroutes.ts accepted attacker-controlled host, port, useTLS, and selfsignedcert parameters from the testSignalKConnection, requestAccess, and checkAccessRequest endpoints without validating the destination. When security was not configured, addAdminMiddleware() was a no-op in dummysecurity.ts, leaving all three endpoints accessible without authentication. The server could be forced to contact loopback, private, link-local, cloud metadata, or arbitrary external destinations, and selfsignedcert could disable certificate verification for outbound HTTPS requests. The checkAccessRequest endpoint also interpolated requestId into its destination path, allowing traversal to other paths on the selected host. Distinct success, connection-refused, and timeout responses enabled internal port scanning; returned response bodies enabled cloud metadata and internal-service data exfiltration; requestAccess enabled server-side POST requests with attacker-controlled JSON; and access to cluster-internal services could support lateral movement. This issue is fixed in version 2.28.0.

Impact

An attacker can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to make the signalk-server initiate network requests to arbitrary internal or external destinations, potentially bypassing security controls. This can lead to internal port scanning, exfiltration of sensitive data from cloud metadata and internal services, and unauthorized POST requests with attacker-controlled payloads. The vulnerability also enables path traversal on the destination host, increasing the risk of data exposure. These impacts can facilitate further attacks such as lateral movement within a cluster or environment. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 5.8 (medium severity), reflecting network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges required, no user interaction, and partial confidentiality impact.

Summary

SignalK signalk-server versions before 2.28.0 contain an SSRF vulnerability (CWE-918) due to insufficient validation of host, port, useTLS, and selfsignedcert parameters in the makeRemoteRequest() function. When security is disabled, the addAdminMiddleware() function is a no-op, leaving the testSignalKConnection, requestAccess, and checkAccessRequest endpoints accessible without authentication. This allows attackers to coerce the server into making arbitrary network requests, including to loopback, private, link-local, cloud metadata, or external hosts. The vulnerability also enables internal port scanning via distinct response behaviors, exfiltration of internal service data, and execution of server-side POST requests with attacker-controlled JSON. The checkAccessRequest endpoint's interpolation of requestId into the destination path allows path traversal on the target host. These combined factors can facilitate reconnaissance, data leakage, and lateral movement within the affected environment. The vulnerability is resolved in version 2.28.0.

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 15 Sep 2026, 16:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats