Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-53450 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Coturn Project Coturn. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 7th 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-2026-42971
Vulnerability Data
Coturn is a free open source implementation of TURN and STUN Server. Prior to 4.13.0, coturn rejects loopback peers by default unless allow-loopback-peers is enabled, but the default loopback guard can be bypassed by using the IPv4-mapped IPv6 peer address…
more
::ffff:127.0.0.1 in a TURN XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute. ioa_addr_is_loopback checks for the literal IPv6 loopback shape before IPv4-mapped IPv6 handling, so good_peer_addr does not apply the default loopback rejection and an authenticated TURN client can expose services bound only to localhost on the coturn host through TURN relay traffic. This issue is fixed in version 4.13.0.
- 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.
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.