Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.40% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-62143High confidence
Server-Side Request Forgery protection bypass in misp-modules html_to_markdown via IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses
misp · misp-modules
8.3HighCVSS 4.0
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 misp misp-modules 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
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protection bypass existed in the html_to_markdown expansion module of misp-modules. The module attempts to prevent requests to loopback, private, link-local, and other restricted IP address ranges. However, IP addresses were compared against the blocked ranges without first normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. An authenticated attacker able to invoke the module could supply an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, such as: http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/ http://[::ffff:169.254.169.254]/ Alternatively, the attacker could use a hostname that resolves to an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. These addresses were treated as IPv6 addresses and therefore did not match the corresponding blocked IPv4 ranges. Successful exploitation could cause the misp-modules server to connect to services available through its loopback interface, internal network, or link-local network. This could expose internal web services, administrative interfaces, or cloud instance metadata, with retrieved content potentially returned to the attacker as converted Markdown. The vulnerability has been addressed by normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses to their underlying IPv4 representation before applying the blocked-range checks. URLs without a valid hostname are now also rejected.
What
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protection bypass existed in the html_to_markdown expansion module of misp-modules. The module attempts to prevent requests to loopback, private, link-local, and other restricted IP address ranges. However, IP addresses were compared against the blocked ranges without first normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. An authenticated attacker able to invoke the module could supply an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, such as: http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/ http://[::ffff:169.254.169.254]/ Alternatively, the attacker could use a hostname that resolves to an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. These addresses were treated as IPv6 addresses and therefore did not match the corresponding blocked IPv4 ranges. Successful exploitation could cause the misp-modules server to connect to services available through its loopback interface, internal network, or link-local network. This could expose internal web services, administrative interfaces, or cloud instance metadata, with retrieved content potentially returned to the attacker as converted Markdown. The vulnerability has been addressed by normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses to their underlying IPv4 representation before applying the blocked-range checks. URLs without a valid hostname are now also rejected.
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 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protection bypass existed in the html_to_markdown expansion module of misp-modules. The module attempts to prevent requests to loopback, private, link-local, and other restricted IP address ranges. However, IP addresses were compared against the blocked ranges without first normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. An authenticated attacker able to invoke the module could supply an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, such as: http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/ http://[::ffff:169.254.169.254]/ Alternatively, the attacker could use a hostname that resolves to an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. These addresses were treated as IPv6 addresses and therefore did not match the corresponding blocked IPv4 ranges. Successful exploitation could cause the misp-modules server to connect to services available through its loopback interface, internal network, or link-local network. This could expose internal web services, administrative interfaces, or cloud instance metadata, with retrieved content potentially returned to the attacker as converted Markdown. The vulnerability has been addressed by normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses to their underlying IPv4 representation before applying the blocked-range checks. URLs without a valid hostname are now also rejected.
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
- 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:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/AU:Y/RE:M/U:GreenCommon 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.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.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. - Patch available
- Affected
- misp-modules: ≤ v3.0.8
- 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 13 Jul 2026 · Last source change 14 Jul 2026, 14:32 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
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-2026-43306
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
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
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
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.