Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:XSummary
CVE-2026-50189 is a high-severity Permissive List of Allowed Inputs (CWE-183) vulnerability in Appsmith Appsmith. Its CVSS base score is 8.9 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 25th 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-2026-39107
Vulnerability Data
Appsmith is a platform to build admin panels, internal tools, and dashboards. Prior to 2.1, Appsmith's bundled supervisord exposes an XML-RPC interface on port 9001, reachable from outside the container via a Caddy reverse-proxy route at /supervisor/* on the public…
more
ingress. Combined with the APPSMITH_SUPERVISOR_PASSWORD exposed via GET /api/v1/admin/env, any authenticated administrator can send arbitrary XML-RPC calls to supervisord and execute OS commands inside the Docker container via twiddler.addProgramToGroup. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.5.2V4.4.2V1.3.6V1.5.3
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Strict validity checks on inputs directly stop overly permissive allow lists from being used as the protection mechanism.
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 rigorous allow-list design and testing that prevents permissive input validation.
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.
Security testing can detect overly broad allow-lists, but does not inherently prevent their creation.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Application security requirements can mandate strict, minimal allow-lists and input validation rules that prevent overly permissive lists.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require explicit, least-privilege input validation designs that directly address permissive allow-lists.
Secure coding standards enforce rigorous input validation and reject unsafe values, mitigating permissive allow-list weaknesses.
Configuration management can enforce validated input rules, yet does not directly address the design flaw of permissive lists.