Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/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:Y/R:X/V:X/RE:M/U:GreenCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-62143 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 34th 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-2026-43306
Vulnerability Data
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protection bypass existed in the html_to_markdown expansion module of misp-modules. The module attempts to prevent requests to loopback, private, link-local, and other restricted IP address ranges. However, IP addresses were compared against the blocked ranges…
more
without first normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. An authenticated attacker able to invoke the module could supply an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, such as: http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/ http://[::ffff:169.254.169.254]/ Alternatively, the attacker could use a hostname that resolves to an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. These addresses were treated as IPv6 addresses and therefore did not match the corresponding blocked IPv4 ranges. Successful exploitation could cause the misp-modules server to connect to services available through its loopback interface, internal network, or link-local network. This could expose internal web services, administrative interfaces, or cloud instance metadata, with retrieved content potentially returned to the attacker as converted Markdown. The vulnerability has been addressed by normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses to their underlying IPv4 representation before applying the blocked-range checks. URLs without a valid hostname are now also rejected.
- 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.
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.
Secure development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
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.