VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jul 2026

CVE-2026-55372: NukeViet · Pre-authentication SSRF via X-Forwarded-Host

Affects nukeviet/nukevietSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High : upgrade to 4.6.00 soon.

Data as of 14 Jul 2026, 09:58 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.2High

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 4.6.00

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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: 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 13 Jul 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 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 nukeviet/nukeviet to 4.6.00.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Packagistnukeviet/nukeviet	Affected <4.6.00	Fixed in 4.6.00

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 NukeViet version 4.6.00 and later, which validates and normalizes the X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-Proto, and X-Forwarded-Port headers, and enforces host checks against the configured my_domains list before processing the server_info_update() request. Until upgrading, administrators should configure reverse proxies or web servers to strip or override client-supplied X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-Proto, and X-Forwarded-Port headers and ensure my_domains is correctly configured with the site's canonical domains.

Description

NukeViet before version 4.6.00 contains a pre-authentication Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability via the X-Forwarded-Host and X-Forwarded-Proto HTTP headers. An attacker can send a specially crafted POST request with the __serverInfoUpdate=1 parameter and spoof these headers to cause the server to issue a blind HEAD request to an attacker-controlled host. The vulnerability arises because the server uses these headers without proper validation to build a URL for a cURL request early in processing, before authentication. The SSRF is limited to a fixed request path and does not allow direct data exfiltration or internal remote code execution. However, it enables unauthenticated internal host and port discovery and poisoning of cached server headers.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can cause the server to make arbitrary HTTP HEAD requests to attacker-chosen internal or external hosts and ports. This enables internal host and port discovery and poisoning of cached server response headers, which may affect site behavior. The SSRF is blind and limited to a fixed request path, so it does not allow direct data exfiltration, cloud metadata access, or remote code execution. The overall impact is rated high due to the unauthenticated nature and potential for internal network reconnaissance and cache poisoning.

Summary

The vulnerability exists in NukeViet's includes/ini.php and vendor/vinades/nukeviet/Core/Server.php components where the server_info_update() function issues a cURL request using the X-Forwarded-Host and X-Forwarded-Proto headers without validation. The standardizeHost() function's regex-based port stripping can be bypassed by appending a slash, allowing attacker-controlled host:port values to reach the cURL sink. The __serverInfoUpdate=1 POST request triggers this behavior before authentication. The SSRF is blind and restricted to a fixed HEAD request path, preventing direct data exfiltration or cloud metadata access. The issue is mitigated by validating and normalizing forwarded headers using parse_url(), restricting X-Forwarded-Proto to http/https, validating X-Forwarded-Port numerically, and enforcing host checks against configured domains (my_domains).

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 14 Jul 2026, 09:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats