VulnerabilityPublished 24 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-77294: mauriceboe TREK · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects mauriceboe TREKSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 3.3.0 soon.

Data as of 8 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 23% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.3.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 24 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 8 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 TREK and liketrek/TREK to 3.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
mauriceboeTREK	Affected <3.3.0	Fixed in 3.3.0
GitHubliketrek/TREK`pkg:github/liketrek/TREK`Other threats	Affected <3.3.0	Fixed in 3.3.0

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

AI-suggested

Upgrade TREK to version 3.3.0 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability is fixed. No other mitigation is required as the vendor has provided an official fix.

Description

TREK is a collaborative travel planner. Prior to 3.3.0, TREK allows an authenticated user to store an attacker-controlled llm_base_url through the settings API when the LLM_PARSING feature is enabled. Write permission to the target trip instance is required to trigger the vulnerable AI-assisted import path. The value is consumed by the clients in server/src/nest/llm-parse/clients/openai-compatible.client.ts, server/src/nest/llm-parse/clients/anthropic.client.ts, and server/src/nest/llm-parse/router/ollama-format.client.ts without applying the server-side request forgery guard. Triggering AI-assisted trip parsing causes the server to request the supplied destination, and upstream error response text can be returned in parsing warnings. This permits internal service discovery and access to link-local cloud metadata, with possible disclosure of infrastructure credentials and subsequent modification of protected cloud resources. This issue is fixed in version 3.3.0.

Impact

An attacker with authenticated write access to a trip instance can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to make the server perform requests to internal or cloud metadata endpoints. This may lead to disclosure of sensitive infrastructure credentials and allow unauthorized modification of protected cloud resources. The vulnerability has a high severity with a CVSS score of 8.1, indicating a significant risk to confidentiality and integrity, but no impact on availability is noted.

Summary

TREK versions before 3.3.0 contain an SSRF vulnerability (CWE-918) where an authenticated user with write access can control the llm_base_url setting via the settings API if LLM_PARSING is enabled. This URL is consumed by server-side AI-assisted import clients without SSRF guards, causing the server to make requests to attacker-supplied destinations. This can disclose internal services and cloud metadata, risking credential exposure and unauthorized cloud resource modification. The issue is resolved in TREK 3.3.0.

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 1 Oct 2026, 18:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats