VulnerabilityPublished 4 Aug 2026Updated 6 Aug 2026

CVE-2026-70367: Mobi-Com Polska Sp. z o.o stunnel · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Mobi-Com Polska Sp. z o.o stunnelSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 5.80 when convenient.

Data as of 2 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.80

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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: 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 4 Aug 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 2 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 Mobi-Com Polska Sp. z o.o stunnel to 5.80.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mobi-Com Polska Sp. z o.o.stunnel	Affected >=5.25 <5.80	Fixed in 5.80
GitHubstunnel`pkg:github/stunnel`Other threats	Affected >=5.25 <5.80	Fixed in 5.80

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

AI-suggested

If SOCKS proxying is not required, disable the "protocol = socks" setting in stunnel. If SOCKS proxying is necessary, restrict access to the SOCKS listener by binding it to a trusted management network or localhost, and enforce client authentication or network ACLs. Running stunnel in isolated containers or network namespaces without other services bound to localhost, or applying firewall rules to restrict outgoing connections from stunnel to localhost, can further mitigate the risk.

Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) bypass vulnerability exists in “stunnel” 5.79 and lower when configured in SOCKS proxy mode. This flaw allows a client to bypass intended localhost restrictions by using IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (e.g., “::ffff:127.0.0.1”) or unspecified addresses ("0.0.0.0", "::"), enabling access to loopback-only services on the "stunnel" host that should not be network-reachable.

Impact

This vulnerability allows an attacker with network access to the stunnel SOCKS proxy to bypass localhost access restrictions and potentially interact with local services that are not intended to be exposed externally. The impact includes limited confidentiality and integrity risks, as attackers might read application data or execute unauthorized commands via local services. There is no impact on availability. Exploitation requires the SOCKS proxy mode to be enabled and accessible to the attacker.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Aug 2026, 17:34 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats