Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-34526 is a medium-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Sillytavern Sillytavern. Its CVSS base score is 5.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 20th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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-2026-18444
Vulnerability Data
SillyTavern is a locally installed user interface that allows users to interact with text generation large language models, image generation engines, and text-to-speech voice models. Prior to version 1.17.0, in src/endpoints/search.js, the hostname is checked against /^\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+$/. This only matches…
more
literal dotted-quad IPv4 (e.g. 127.0.0.1, 10.0.0.1). It does not catch: localhost (hostname, not dotted-quad), [::1] (IPv6 loopback), and DNS names resolving to internal addresses (e.g. localtest.me -> 127.0.0.1). A separate port check (urlObj.port !== '') limits exploitation to services on default ports (80/443), making this lower severity than a fully unrestricted SSRF. This issue has been patched in version 1.17.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
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.
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 development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
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.