VulnerabilityPublished 22 Sep 2026Updated 25 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-84301: labring FastGPT · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects labring FastGPTSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 4.15.2 when convenient.

Data as of 5 Nov 2026, 00:01 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.15.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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: 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: 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 22 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 5 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 FastGPT and labring/FastGPT to 4.15.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
labringFastGPT	Affected <4.15.2	Fixed in 4.15.2
GitHublabring/FastGPT`pkg:github/labring/FastGPT`Other threats	Affected <4.15.2	Fixed in 4.15.2

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 FastGPT version 4.15.2. Users should upgrade to version 4.15.2 or later to remediate this issue. No other mitigation or workaround is indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

FastGPT is an open-source LLM platform for building AI applications on a knowledge base. Prior to 4.15.2, the safe Axios request interceptor in packages/service/common/api/axios.ts validates a hostname with isInternalAddress() before a later HTTP connection performs an independent DNS lookup, creating a DNS rebinding window, allowing an attacker-controlled hostname to resolve publicly during the check and to a loopback, private, link-local, or metadata address during connection. An authenticated attacker who can supply a URL to a safe-Axios-backed HTTP tool, workflow HTTP node, external file fetch, or other server-side integration can use this time-of-check/time-of-use gap to reach services that direct private-address inputs would block. The same independent re-resolution occurs after manual redirect hops because each redirect target is checked before a separate connection lookup. This issue is fixed in version 4.15.2.

Impact

An authenticated attacker can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to make the FastGPT server send requests to internal or otherwise protected network resources that are normally inaccessible. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive internal services or metadata endpoints. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or integrity of external resources but allows high confidentiality impact on internal resources. There is no impact on integrity or availability of FastGPT itself.

Summary

FastGPT's safe Axios request interceptor validates hostnames using isInternalAddress() before making HTTP connections. However, the DNS lookup during validation is separate from the DNS resolution performed at connection time, creating a window for DNS rebinding attacks. An attacker with authentication who can supply URLs to HTTP tools or workflows can exploit this TOCTOU gap to access internal, loopback, link-local, or metadata addresses that would normally be blocked. Redirects are also vulnerable due to repeated independent DNS resolutions. The vulnerability is addressed in FastGPT version 4.15.2.

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 29 Sep 2026, 18:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats