Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:P/AU:Y/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:AmberSummary
CVE-2026-12986 is a high-severity CSRF (CWE-352) vulnerability in Payara Server Full (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 8th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-38793
Vulnerability Data
A critical vulnerability in Admin GUI in Payara Server Full 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, 7.x, 7.2026.x, 6.2025.x, 6.2024.x on All platforms that allows the attacker to leak the admin gfresttoken to an attacker-controlled host that can result in a full unauthenticated…
more
takeover of Payara admin domain. A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the DownloadServlet of the Admin GUI in Payara Server allows a remote attacker to exfiltrate the administrator's REST session token (gfresttoken) to an attacker-controlled host via a crafted request URL. Combined with the absence of CSRF protection on DownloadServlet, an unauthenticated attacker can trick a logged-in administrator into triggering the token leak, then replay the stolen token to gain full administrative access to the Payara domain, leading to arbitrary code execution via WAR deployment. The vulnerability exists in the DownloadServlet and associated ContentSource implementations (LogViewerContentSource, LogFilesContentSource, LBConfigContentSource, ClientStubsContentSource) within the admingui:console-common module.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.3.2V3.5.1V10.2.1V1.3.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Access enforcement requires verifying that state-changing requests originate from the authenticated user rather than a forged cross-site source.
Protecting session authenticity prevents attackers from replaying or forging authenticated requests via the victim's browser.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require anti-CSRF controls such as tokens or SameSite attributes.
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.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
By denying access to phishing or malicious sites, the control lowers the likelihood that a user will be tricked into submitting a forged request that performs an unintended action on another site.