VulnerabilityPublished 6 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-58141: langgenius dify · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects langgenius difySource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High : upgrade to 1.15.0 soon.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 16:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.2High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 4.0	7.2
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 3.1	7.6

Patch: Available – fixed in 1.15.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Nov 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 6 Nov 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 langgenius dify to 1.15.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
langgeniusdify	Affected >=0.6.0 <1.15.0	Fixed in 1.15.0
GitHubdify`pkg:github/dify`Other threats	Affected >=0.6.0 <1.15.0	Fixed in 1.15.0

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

AI-suggested

A patch is available and included in dify version 1.15.0. Users should upgrade to version 1.15.0 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Since this is a cloud-hosted service, the vendor manages remediation for the cloud environment; verify with the vendor advisory for confirmation. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official fix.

Description

Dify versions before 1.15.0 contain a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that allows authenticated console users to bypass SSRF protections and send arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This is due to insufficient Squid proxy ACL configuration and lack of destination IP validation in the make_request() helper. The vulnerability enables access to internal components such as the sandbox, internal APIs, PostgreSQL, and on AWS, the instance metadata service, potentially exposing IAM credentials. The HTTP Request workflow node also allows modifying internal services via POST, PUT, and DELETE methods. A fix is available in version 1.15.0.

Impact

An authenticated console user can bypass SSRF protections to send arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services and cloud metadata endpoints. This can lead to unauthorized access to internal components such as sandboxes, internal APIs, and databases. On AWS deployments, attackers can read IAM credentials from the instance metadata service, potentially escalating privileges or compromising cloud resources. The ability to perform POST, PUT, and DELETE requests to internal services increases the risk of unauthorized modification or disruption of internal systems that rely on network isolation for security.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Nov 2026, 16:04 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats