Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.45% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-46725High confidence
FoodCoopShop Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability
foodcoopshop · foodcoopshop
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-JHWW-FX2J-3RF7 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
8.1HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, 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 foodcoopshop foodcoopshop 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.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
FoodCoopShop is open source software for food coops and local shops. Versions starting with 3.2.0 prior to 3.6.1 are vulnerable to server-side request forgery. In the Network module, a manufacturer account can use the `/api/updateProducts.json` endpoint to make the server send a request to an arbitrary host. This means that the server can be used as a proxy into the internal network where the server is. Furthermore, the checks on a valid image are not adequate, leading to a time of check time of use issue. For example, by using a custom server that returns 200 on HEAD requests, then return a valid image on first GET request and then a 302 redirect to final target on second GET request, the server will copy whatever file is at the redirect destination, making this a full SSRF. Version 3.6.1 fixes this vulnerability.
What
FoodCoopShop is open source software for food coops and local shops. Versions starting with 3.2.0 prior to 3.6.1 are vulnerable to server-side request forgery. In the Network module, a manufacturer account can use the `/api/updateProducts.json` endpoint to make the server send a request to an arbitrary host. This means that the server can be used as a proxy into the internal network where the server is. Furthermore, the checks on a valid image are not adequate, leading to a time of check time of use issue. For example, by using a custom server that returns 200 on HEAD requests, then return a valid image on first GET request and then a 302 redirect to final target on second GET request, the server will copy whatever file is at the redirect destination, making this a full SSRF. Version 3.6.1 fixes this vulnerability.
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
FoodCoopShop is open source software for food coops and local shops. Versions starting with 3.2.0 prior to 3.6.1 are vulnerable to server-side request forgery. In the Network module, a manufacturer account can use the `/api/updateProducts.json` endpoint to make the server send a request to an arbitrary host. This means that the server can be used as a proxy into the internal network where the server is. Furthermore, the checks on a valid image are not adequate, leading to a time of check time of use issue. For example, by using a custom server that returns 200 on HEAD requests, then return a valid image on first GET request and then a 302 redirect to final target on second GET request, the server will copy whatever file is at the redirect destination, making this a full SSRF. Version 3.6.1 fixes this vulnerability.
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
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- 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:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.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.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major 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
- foodcoopshop: >= 3.2.0, < 3.6.1
- 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 2 Nov 2023 · Last source change 12 Sept 2024, 19:35 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-2023-2988
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.