Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-89049 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Amazon AWS Systems (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 29th 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 SC-7 (Boundary Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-75674
Vulnerability Data
A server-side request forgery issue due to improper validation of equivalent address representations in the port forwarding to remote hosts functionality in Amazon AWS Systems Manager Agent (SSM Agent) before 3.3.4851.0 on all platforms might allow an authenticated remote user…
more
to bypass the remote destination denylist and reach link-local endpoints, potentially obtaining the temporary IAM role credentials of a managed instance and acting with that role's permissions from outside the instance, via a crafted destination host value that uses an alternate representation of a denied link-local address. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to version 3.3.4851.0 or later.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.2V9.1.3V10.4.6V2.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
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.
Application security requirements can mandate input validation rules that prevent unsafe equivalence checks.
Secure architecture principles include proper input validation and canonicalization to avoid unsafe equivalence.
Secure coding standards directly require correct validation of resource identifiers and equivalence checks.
Security testing can detect unsafe equivalence flaws but does not prevent them at design time.