Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.80% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2022
CVE-2022-29180High confidence
Charm vulnerable to server-side request forgery (SSRF)
charmbracelet · charm
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-4WPP-W5R4-7V5V ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
5.9MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs charmbracelet charm and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
A vulnerability in which attackers could forge HTTP requests to manipulate the `charm` data directory to access or delete anything on the server. This has been patched and is available in release [v0.12.1](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/releases/tag/v0.12.1). We recommend that all users running self-hosted `charm` instances update immediately. This vulnerability was found in-house and we haven't been notified of any potential exploiters. ### Additional notes * Encrypted user data uploaded to the Charm server is safe as Charm servers cannot decrypt user data. This includes filenames, paths, and all key-value data. * Users running the official Charm [Docker images](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/main/docker.md) are at minimal risk because the exploit is limited to the containerized filesystem.
What
A vulnerability in which attackers could forge HTTP requests to manipulate the `charm` data directory to access or delete anything on the server. This has been patched and is available in release [v0.12.1](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/releases/tag/v0.12.1). We recommend that all users running self-hosted `charm` instances update immediately. This vulnerability was found in-house and we haven't been notified of any potential exploiters. ### Additional notes * Encrypted user data uploaded to the Charm server is safe as Charm servers cannot decrypt user data. This includes filenames, paths, and all key-value data. * Users running the official Charm [Docker images](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/main/docker.md) are at minimal risk because the exploit is limited to the containerized filesystem.
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
A vulnerability in which attackers could forge HTTP requests to manipulate the `charm` data directory to access or delete anything on the server. This has been patched and is available in release [v0.12.1](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/releases/tag/v0.12.1). We recommend that all users running self-hosted `charm` instances update immediately. This vulnerability was found in-house and we haven't been notified of any potential exploiters. ### Additional notes * Encrypted user data uploaded to the Charm server is safe as Charm servers cannot decrypt user data. This includes filenames, paths, and all key-value data. * Users running the official Charm [Docker images](https://github.com/charmbracelet/charm/blob/main/docker.md) are at minimal risk because the exploit is limited to the containerized filesystem.
Why
The server follows an attacker-influenced destination, allowing requests to systems or services the attacker cannot reach directly.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-918 ↗
CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- charm: >= 0.9.0, < 0.12.1
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 7 May 2022 · Last source change 23 Apr 2025, 18:27 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2022-2461
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.