VulnerabilityPublished 24 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-77581: alam00000 bentopdf · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects alam00000 bentopdfSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High : upgrade to 2.8.7 soon.

Data as of 7 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.8.7

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: 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: 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: 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 impacted component 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 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 bentopdf and alam00000/bentopdf to 2.8.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
alam00000bentopdf	Affected <2.8.7	Fixed in 2.8.7
GitHubalam00000/bentopdf`pkg:github/alam00000/bentopdf`Other threats	Affected <2.8.7	Fixed in 2.8.7

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 BentoPDF version 2.8.7. Users should upgrade to this version to remediate the vulnerability. Since this is a cloud service with a Worker execution environment, the vendor manages remediation for the official deployment. For self-hosted instances, administrators must apply the update to ensure protection. Deployments should also ensure PROXY_SECRET is configured to enable signature checks as an anti-abuse measure.

Description

BentoPDF is a client-side PDF toolkit that is self hostable. In 2.8.6 and earlier, the certificate and timestamp CORS proxy in cloudflare/cors-proxy-worker.js uses isPrivateOrReservedHost() to validate a supplied hostname separately from the DNS resolution used by fetch(targetUrl), allowing an attacker-controlled hostname to resolve to an internal or reserved destination after validation. A certificate-like path can satisfy ALLOWED_PATH_PATTERNS, and direct clients can forge the browser-oriented Origin header. Deployments without PROXY_SECRET skip the optional signature check, while the signature is an anti-abuse measure rather than a destination-security boundary. The proxy has a 10 MB response limit and can relay response bodies from reachable destinations. The advisory identifies both the official Worker deployment and self-hosted instances as impacted where the Worker execution environment can reach internal or reserved destinations. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.8.7.

Impact

An attacker can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to make the BentoPDF proxy server send requests to internal or reserved network destinations that are normally inaccessible, potentially exposing sensitive internal services or data. The vulnerability allows reading response bodies up to 10 MB. The CVSS score of 8.6 indicates high severity with network attack vector, no privileges required, and impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Summary

BentoPDF's certificate and timestamp CORS proxy uses isPrivateOrReservedHost() to validate hostnames separately from the DNS resolution performed by fetch(targetUrl). This discrepancy allows an attacker to supply a hostname that passes validation but resolves internally or to reserved IPs, enabling SSRF. The proxy supports a 10 MB response relay and can be exploited if the Worker environment can reach internal or reserved destinations. Deployments without PROXY_SECRET skip signature checks, weakening anti-abuse measures. The vulnerability is addressed in BentoPDF 2.8.7.

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, 19:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats