CVE-2026-121422VulnerabilityPublished 3 Nov 2026

SurrealDB from 3.1.0 before 3.3.0 contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability that allows database Owners to

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-121422· Medium 5.1

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium : upgrade to 3.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 3 Nov 2026, 16:29 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 4.0	5.1
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 3.1	4.1

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.3.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: Low
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Nov 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 3 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.

ghsa-7wm7-v445-mpw3

What to do

Upgrade surrealdb to 3.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
surrealdbsurrealdb	Affected >=3.1.0 <3.3.0	Fixed in 3.3.0
crates.iosurrealdb`pkg:cargo/surrealdb`Other threats	Affected >=3.1.0 <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

If you cannot patch yet, restrict database Owner privileges to trusted users and monitor for suspicious activity involving JWKS URL configurations that omit explicit ports.

Description

SurrealDB versions from 3.1.0 up to but not including 3.3.0 contain a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. This flaw allows database Owners to bypass port-specific deny-net rules by using JSON Web Key Set (JWKS) URLs that omit the explicit port number 80 or 443. As a result, blind GET requests can be made to internal services that are otherwise explicitly denied by network rules.

Impact

An attacker with database Owner privileges can bypass network restrictions intended to block access to certain internal services by exploiting the SSRF vulnerability. This can lead to unauthorized blind GET requests to internal endpoints, potentially exposing sensitive information or internal network structure. The impact is limited to partial confidentiality loss without integrity or availability impact.

Summary

The vulnerability in SurrealDB versions 3.1.0 before 3.3.0 is a server-side request forgery (SSRF) issue where database Owners can exploit JWKS URLs with implicit default ports (80 or 443) to circumvent port-specific deny-net rules. By configuring a JWT or record access method with such a JWKS URL, attackers can cause the server to make blind GET requests to internal services that should be blocked, potentially exposing internal network resources. The CVSS 3.1 score is 4.1 (medium severity), with an attack vector of network, low attack complexity, requiring high privileges, no user interaction, and a confidentiality impact limited to partial information disclosure.

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 3 Nov 2026, 16:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats