Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-35587 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Nicolargo Glances. 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 33th 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-2026-35587 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the IP plugin of Glances, an open-source cross-platform system monitoring tool. The issue affects versions prior to 4.0.4 and stems from improper validation of the public_api configuration parameter, which is used directly in outbound HTTP requests via the urlopen_auth function without scheme restrictions or hostname/IP validation. This allows unrestricted connections to arbitrary endpoints. Additionally, if public_username and public_password are configured, these credentials are automatically included in the Authorization: Basic header, enabling leakage to attacker-controlled servers.
An attacker with the ability to modify the Glances configuration, requiring low privileges as indicated by the CVSS v3.1 score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), can exploit this to force the application to issue requests to internal network services or external endpoints. Potential impacts include accessing sensitive internal resources, retrieving data from cloud metadata endpoints, and exfiltrating credentials through outbound HTTP requests to attacker servers, resulting in high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts (CWE-918).
The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-g5pq-48mj-jvw8) and associated patch commit (d6808be66728956477cc4b544bab1acd71ac65fb) confirm that upgrading to Glances version 4.0.4 resolves the vulnerability by addressing the lack of validation in the public_api handling. Security practitioners should review configurations for exposed public_api settings and ensure timely patching to prevent exploitation.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-23990
Vulnerability Data
Glances is an open-source system cross-platform monitoring tool. Prior to version 4.5.4, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the Glances IP plugin due to improper validation of the public_api configuration parameter. The value of public_api is used directly…
more
in outbound HTTP requests without any scheme restriction or hostname/IP validation. An attacker who can modify the Glances configuration can force the application to send requests to arbitrary internal or external endpoints. Additionally, when public_username and public_password are set, Glances automatically includes these credentials in the Authorization: Basic header, resulting in credential leakage to attacker-controlled servers. This vulnerability can be exploited to access internal network services, retrieve sensitive data from cloud metadata endpoints, and/or exfiltrate credentials via outbound HTTP requests. The issue arises because public_api is passed directly to the HTTP client (urlopen_auth) without validation, allowing unrestricted outbound connections and unintended disclosure of sensitive information. Version 4.5.4 contains a patch.
- 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.
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.