Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.32% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-10582High confidence
Hugo 0.91.0 through 0.165.0 Server-Side Request Forgery via security.http.urls Lacking Destination Address Validation
gohugoio · hugo
8.3HighCVSS 4.0
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 3 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
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 gohugoio hugo 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.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 3 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Debian Security Tracker: 3 affected package states with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
5 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 3 affected package states shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | hugo | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | hugo | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | hugo | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | hugo | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 0.166.0-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · esm-apps | hugo | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Direct vendor intelligence
1 currentAuthoritative vendor CSAF and VEX advisories
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
CVE-2026-10582 · CSAF 2.0 · revision 3 · finalRed Hat Product Securityhugo: github.com/gohugoio/hugo: Hugo: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) leading to information disclosure.
The vendor explicitly identifies these products or versions as containing the fix.
- hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@aarch64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@src as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@x86_64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- Summary
- A flaw was found in Hugo. The `security.http.urls` allowlist, which controls outbound fetches, does not adequately validate the destination address of URLs. This vulnerability allows a remote attacker to supply a specially crafted URL that resolves to internal network resources. As a result, the Hugo build process can fetch internal endpoints, and the sensitive response data may be embedded and published within the generated static site, leading to information disclosure.
- Remediation
- For details on how to apply this update, which includes the changes described in this advisory, refer to: https://images.redhat.com/
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 3 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
Hugo's security.http.urls allowlist is the only control on outbound fetches made by resources.GetRemote, and it inspects the URL text alone. CheckAllowedHTTPURL in config/security/securityConfig.go applies the configured pattern list and then re-checks a canonicalised form of an integer, hex or octal IPv4 host, but it never resolves the hostname and never inspects the address the HTTP client actually connects to. The client constructed in resources/resource_factories/create/create.go installs no dial-time hook, so no check occurs at connection time either. A hostname that resolves to a loopback, private or cloud-metadata address therefore satisfies the policy, and the response body is embedded in the generated site. An attacker who can supply a URL through content, for example a front-matter field or a CMS field, can make the build fetch an internal endpoint and publish the response in the static output, so the build artifact itself carries the data out.
What
Hugo's security.http.urls allowlist is the only control on outbound fetches made by resources.GetRemote, and it inspects the URL text alone. CheckAllowedHTTPURL in config/security/securityConfig.go applies the configured pattern list and then re-checks a canonicalised form of an integer, hex or octal IPv4 host, but it never resolves the hostname and never inspects the address the HTTP client actually connects to. The client constructed in resources/resource_factories/create/create.go installs no dial-time hook, so no check occurs at connection time either. A hostname that resolves to a loopback, private or cloud-metadata address therefore satisfies the policy, and the response body is embedded in the generated site. An attacker who can supply a URL through content, for example a front-matter field or a CMS field, can make the build fetch an internal endpoint and publish the response in the static output, so the build artifact itself carries the data out.
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 when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Hugo's security.http.urls allowlist is the only control on outbound fetches made by resources.GetRemote, and it inspects the URL text alone. CheckAllowedHTTPURL in config/security/securityConfig.go applies the configured pattern list and then re-checks a canonicalised form of an integer, hex or octal IPv4 host, but it never resolves the hostname and never inspects the address the HTTP client actually connects to. The client constructed in resources/resource_factories/create/create.go installs no dial-time hook, so no check occurs at connection time either. A hostname that resolves to a loopback, private or cloud-metadata address therefore satisfies the policy, and the response body is embedded in the generated site. An attacker who can supply a URL through content, for example a front-matter field or a CMS field, can make the build fetch an internal endpoint and publish the response in the static output, so the build artifact itself carries the data out.
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 when the stated preconditions are met. 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
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Passive interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- 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:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: 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.ATNoneAttack requirements: No additional deployment or execution condition is required.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIPassiveUser interaction: A user must unknowingly interact with the vulnerable system.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VINoneVulnerable-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.VANoneVulnerable-system availability: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SCHighSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SINoneSubsequent-system integrity: No direct loss is represented by this metric.SANoneSubsequent-system availability: 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. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- hugo: 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0
- Fixed
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- 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 24 Aug 2026 · Last source change 24 Aug 2026, 18:59 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-25
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-64775
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceVendor CSAF · Red Hat Product Security
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- rhoso-operators/openstack-operator-bundle as a component of Red Hat OpenStack Platform 18.0 · Fixed: hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@aarch64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images; hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@src as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images; hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@x86_64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- After
- Fixed: hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@aarch64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images; hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@src as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images; hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@x86_64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- hugo: 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- hugo: 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: For details on how to apply this update, which includes the changes described in this advisory, refer to: https://images.redhat.com/
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- After
- 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: For details on how to apply this update, which includes the changes described in this advisory, refer to: https://images.redhat.com/
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Awaiting fix to Patch available.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- Awaiting fix
- After
- Patch available
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed from remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-10582 to remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-10582.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-10582
- After
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-10582
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Mitigation available to Patch available.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- Mitigation available
- After
- Patch available
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.Red Hat Product Security ↗
- Before
- hugo.src as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images; openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel8 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift GitOps; openshift-gitops-1/argocd-rhel9 as a component of Red Hat OpenShift GitOps; rhoso-operators/openstack-operator-bundle as a component of Red Hat OpenStack Platform 18.0
- After
- rhoso-operators/openstack-operator-bundle as a component of Red Hat OpenStack Platform 18.0 · Fixed: hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@aarch64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images; hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@src as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images; hugo-0:0.166.0-0.1.hum1@x86_64 as a component of Red Hat Hardened Images
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-64775 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-64775"}
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- hugo: 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: For details on how to apply this update, which includes the changes described in this advisory, refer to: https://images.redhat.com/
- After
- hugo: 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: removed remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-10582.CNA ↗
- Before
- remediation: access.redhat.com/CVE-2026-10582
- After
- no authoritative guidance recorded
- Affected versionsThe structured affected or fixed version information changed.CNA ↗
- Before
- 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: For details on how to apply this update, which includes the changes described in this advisory, refer to: https://images.redhat.com/
- After
- hugo: 0.91.0 ≤ 0.165.0 · Fixed: No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Remediation statusRemediation status changed from Patch available to Awaiting fix.CNA ↗
- Before
- Patch available
- After
- Awaiting fix
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
CVE published
Fixed release recorded from official guidance
Fixed release recorded from official guidance
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.