CVE-2026-106459

Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.

Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.

Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.

Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.

Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.

Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.

Secure development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.

A.5.10 only requires awareness, a topic-specific acceptable-use policy stating expected behaviours/monitoring, and procedures referencing classification and other controls; per the owner's explicit rule on labelling and similar dependency-style clauses, this does not itself prevent exposure (CWE-200) unless access/DLP/etc. act on it.

Requiring the return of all physical and electronic assets plus secure deletion of organizational data from personal devices reduces the chance that sensitive information remains accessible to departing personnel.

A.5.12 only defines and communicates a classification scheme so that protection needs can be understood; per the owner's explicit rule, labeling/classification does not itself prevent exposure and requires other controls (e.g. access enforcement) to act on it.

By requiring classification labels and metadata on all information assets, the control makes it harder for sensitive data to be inadvertently exposed because downstream systems and users can recognize and enforce handling rules based on those labels.

Requiring encryption, access controls, and recipient authentication for transfers directly reduces the chance that sensitive data reaches an unauthorized observer.