VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-55162: Lemur · Crafted CRL/OCSP URLs in uploaded certificates lead to post-authentication SSRF

Affects lemurSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-55162· Medium 6.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium : upgrade to 1.9.2 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 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 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.9.2

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

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

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CISA SSVC: proof of concept public
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

CVE ID reserved
by GitHub, Inc.
16 Jun 202615:13 UTC, 63 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
18 Aug 202618:52 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
19 Aug 202615:15 UTC, 20 hours after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA SSVC, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 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 lemur to 1.9.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIlemur	Affected <1.9.2	Fixed in 1.9.2

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

Description

## Summary When verifying an uploaded certificate, `lemur/certificates/verify.py` extracts the CRL Distribution Point URL and the OCSP responder URL directly from the certificate's extensions and issues outbound requests to those URLs without scheme restriction or destination allow-listing. An authenticated user holding the operator role (required by `StrictRolePermission` on `POST /certificates/upload`) can craft a certificate whose extensions point at internal services - instance metadata endpoints, internal Kubernetes API servers, RFC1918 hosts, link-local addresses - and cause the Lemur host to issue requests against those destinations during verification. ## Root Cause `lemur/certificates/verify.py`, `crl_verify`: ```python point = p.full_name[0].value # URL from CDP extension of uploaded cert ... response = requests.get(point, timeout=(3.05, 6)) # no allow-list, no destination filter ``` `lemur/certificates/verify.py`, `ocsp_verify`: ```python command = ["openssl", "x509", "-noout", "-ocsp_uri", "-in", cert_path] p1 = subprocess.Popen(command, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, ...) url, _ = p1.communicate() p2 = subprocess.Popen( ["openssl", "ocsp", "-issuer", issuer_chain_path, "-cert", cert_path, "-url", url.strip()], # attacker-controlled URL ... ) ``` In both code paths the URL flows from attacker-controlled certificate-extension content to a network sink with no validation against an allow-list of hostnames, no scheme restriction beyond rejecting LDAP via `InvalidSchema`, and no filtering of RFC1918 / link-local (169.254/16) / loopback / IPv6 ULA destinations. ## Affected Endpoints | Method | Path | Source | |---|---|---| | POST | /api/1/certificates/upload | `verify_string` → `crl_verify` / `ocsp_verify` | The bug additionally surfaces anywhere `verify_string` is invoked on attacker-influenced certificate content (sync paths, source plugin re-validation, etc.). The upload endpoint is the most direct trigger. ## Impact An operator-role attacker can: - Probe the Lemur host's internal network through outbound CRL/OCSP fetches and infer topology from response timings and error messages. - On EC2 instances without IMDSv2 enforcement, cause requests to `http://169.254.169.254/` and influence downstream behavior of components that parse the response. - Pin attacker-controlled CRLs into the unbounded module-level `crl_cache` dict (see Advisory 4c) for permanent cache poisoning - once cached, a poisoned CRL is served to every subsequent verification for the same URL. The operator-role precondition reduces severity from what an unauthenticated SSRF would warrant, but operators are still meaningfully less trusted than the host's network position. PKI workflows also routinely process third-party certificates whose extensions are not directly controlled by the operator, broadening the trigger surface beyond purely-malicious operators. ## Remediation Filter the URL before it reaches the network sink. Either: 1. Maintain an explicit allow-list of CRL/OCSP hostnames in configuration (e.g., `LEMUR_TRUSTED_CRL_HOSTS` and `LEMUR_TRUSTED_OCSP_HOSTS`) and reject anything outside the list, **or** 2. Use an SSRF-safe HTTP client wrapper that resolves the destination, rejects RFC1918 / link-local / loopback / IPv6 ULA addresses before connecting, and pins the resolved IP to defeat DNS rebinding. For OCSP, route the parsed URL through the same wrapper before passing it as `-url` to `openssl ocsp`. Additionally, bound `crl_cache` (see Advisory 4c) to prevent the SSRF vector from amplifying into a persistent cache-poisoning condition. ## Steps to Reproduce 1. Set up Lemur on an EC2 instance with IMDSv1 enabled (or any host with reachable RFC1918 services). Create an admin user and an operator-role user `eve`. 2. Generate a self-signed certificate whose extensions point at internal services: ``` cat > openssl.cnf <<EOF [req] distinguished_name = req_distinguished_name req_extensions = v3_ca prompt = no [req_distinguished_name] CN = ssrf-poc.example [v3_ca] crlDistributionPoints = URI:http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/ authorityInfoAccess = OCSP;URI:http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ EOF openssl req -x509 -newkey rsa:2048 -keyout ssrf.key -out ssrf.crt \ -days 365 -nodes -config openssl.cnf -extensions v3_ca ``` 3. On the Lemur host, start a packet capture filter for the target address before submitting the cert: ``` sudo tcpdump -nni any host 169.254.169.254 ``` 4. As `eve`, upload the malicious certificate: ``` BODY=$(cat ssrf.crt | sed ':a;N;$!ba;s/\n/\\n/g') curl -X POST https://lemur.local/api/1/certificates/upload \ -H "Authorization: Bearer <eve_jwt>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d "{ \"name\": \"ssrf-poc\", \"body\": \"$BODY\", \"ch

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

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats