Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-35032 is a high-severity External Control of File Name or Path (CWE-73) vulnerability in Jellyfin Jellyfin. Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data from Local System (T1005); ranked at the 24th 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-35032 is a vulnerability chain affecting Jellyfin, an open-source self-hosted media server, in versions prior to 10.11.7. The issue resides in the LiveTV M3U tuner endpoint (POST /LiveTv/TunerHosts), where the tuner URL lacks proper validation. This enables local file reads through non-HTTP paths and Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via HTTP URLs. The vulnerability is associated with CWE-73 (External Control of File Name or Path) and CWE-918 (SSRF), earning a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N).
Any authenticated user can exploit this vulnerability, as the EnableLiveTvManagement permission defaults to true for all new users. An attacker chains the flaws by adding an M3U tuner host pointing to a server they control, which serves a crafted M3U playlist containing a channel that targets the Jellyfin database file. This allows exfiltration of the database, from which admin session tokens can be extracted to escalate privileges to administrator level.
The vulnerability has been addressed in Jellyfin version 10.11.7. For users unable to upgrade immediately, the advisory recommends disabling Live TV Management privileges for all users. Additional details are available in the Jellyfin release notes at https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/releases/tag/v10.11.7 and the security advisory at https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/security/advisories/GHSA-8fw7-f233-ffr8.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-22766
Vulnerability Data
Jellyfin is an open source self hosted media server. Versions prior to 10.11.7 contain a vulnerability chain in the LiveTV M3U tuner endpoint (POST /LiveTv/TunerHosts), where the tuner URL is not validated, allowing local file read via non-HTTP paths and…
more
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via HTTP URLs. This is exploitable by any authenticated user because the EnableLiveTvManagement permission defaults to true for all new users. An attacker can chain these vulnerabilities by adding an M3U tuner pointing to an attacker-controlled server, serving a crafted M3U with a channel pointing to the Jellyfin database, exfiltrating the database to extract admin session tokens, and escalating to admin privileges. This issue has been fixed in version 10.11.7. If users are unable to upgrade immediately, they can disable Live TV Management privileges for all users.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2V1.3.6V1.5.3V10.4.7
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 rejects or sanitizes untrusted path strings before they reach filesystem operations.
Enforces authorization checks on the actual resource accessed, blocking unauthorized files even when a malicious path is supplied.
Least-privilege limits the set of files or directories any subject can affect, shrinking the blast radius of a path-control flaw.
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.
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.
Least-privilege file authorization directly limits damage from externally controlled paths.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
Secure SDLC practices include input validation and path sanitization that eliminate this weakness.
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.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and path-handling controls that directly prevent external file/path manipulation.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against untrusted input influencing file operations.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe path construction but do not prescribe concrete file-name controls.
Secure coding standards require canonicalization, allow-listing, and bounds checks on file paths, directly eliminating CWE-73.
Security testing can detect path-traversal issues but does not itself implement preventive controls.