Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-80350 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 21th 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-2026-66389
Vulnerability Data
OneUptime's webhook target check rejects private and loopback addresses given in IPv4 form and a small set of IPv6 forms, but has no case for the IPv4-mapped IPv6 range. The webhook delivery path calls SSRFProtection.validateWebhookTargetIsSafe, and the host-literal screening inside…
more
Common/Server/Utils/SSRFProtection.ts, performed by isBlockedHostnameLiteral, rejects private and loopback IPv4 ranges and tests an IPv6 value against the unspecified address, the loopback, the link-local prefix and the unique-local prefixes. A value such as [::ffff:127.0.0.1] matches none of them. The value is also recognised as an address literal rather than a name, so the path that re-checks addresses obtained from resolution is not taken. The HTTP client treats the mapped form as the embedded IPv4 address and connects to it, so an authenticated project member who can configure a webhook can direct the server at loopback services, private network ranges and link-local metadata endpoints, and the response is recorded where the webhook result can be read. Version 12.0.7 adds handling for the mapped range.
- 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.