Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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-2026-55599 is a medium-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Phpseclib Phpseclib. Its CVSS base score is 5.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 11th 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-2026-38348
Vulnerability Data
phpseclib is a PHP secure communications library. From 0.1.1 until 1.0.30, 2.0.55, and 3.0.54, when an application validates an untrusted X.509 certificate with phpseclib, X509::validateSignature() reads a URL out of that certificate's Authority Information Access (AIA) extension and connects to…
more
it. Attacker who supplies certificate fully controls host, port, and path of that connection. URL fetching is enabled by default, and no destination is blocked. An unauthenticated attacker can therefore make a validating server open connections to internal hosts and ports it should never reach, for example loopback 127.0.0.1, cloud metadata address 169.254.169.254, and internal-only services. This is a server-side request forgery (SSRF) caused by an insecure default. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.0.30, 2.0.55, and 3.0.54.
- 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.