Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- The selected CVSS metric records a network-reachable, unauthenticated path with no user interaction.
- EPSS is 0.68% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-77987High confidence
GitHub Enterprise Server notebook viewer vulnerable to Server-side request forgery
GitHub · Enterprise Server
9.3CriticalCVSS 4.0
Within 72 hours
Fix not verifiedCritical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- 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 GitHub Enterprise Server and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Critical technical impact with a remotely reachable, unauthenticated path; no CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
A server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability was identified in the notebook viewer of GitHub Enterprise Server. The notebook viewer validated the scheme and host of a user-supplied URL but did not validate the port, allowing requests to be directed to internal services listening on other ports of the same appliance. Response bodies were not returned to the requester, but response timing acted as an oracle that allowed instance secrets to be extracted character by character. An extracted secret could then be used in a separate interaction with an internal service to obtain remote code execution on the appliance. Exploitation required network access to the instance and was unauthenticated when private mode was disabled, or required any authenticated user when private mode was enabled. This vulnerability affected GitHub Enterprise Server versions 3.17 through 3.22 and was fixed in versions 3.22.1, 3.21.6, 3.20.8, 3.19.12, 3.18.15, and 3.17.21. This vulnerability was reported through the GitHub Bug Bounty program.
What
A server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability was identified in the notebook viewer of GitHub Enterprise Server. The notebook viewer validated the scheme and host of a user-supplied URL but did not validate the port, allowing requests to be directed to internal services listening on other ports of the same appliance. Response bodies were not returned to the requester, but response timing acted as an oracle that allowed instance secrets to be extracted character by character. An extracted secret could then be used in a separate interaction with an internal service to obtain remote code execution on the appliance. Exploitation required network access to the instance and was unauthenticated when private mode was disabled, or required any authenticated user when private mode was enabled. This vulnerability affected GitHub Enterprise Server versions 3.17 through 3.22 and was fixed in versions 3.22.1, 3.21.6, 3.20.8, 3.19.12, 3.18.15, and 3.17.21. This vulnerability was reported through the GitHub Bug Bounty program.
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 without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
A server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability was identified in the notebook viewer of GitHub Enterprise Server. The notebook viewer validated the scheme and host of a user-supplied URL but did not validate the port, allowing requests to be directed to internal services listening on other ports of the same appliance. Response bodies were not returned to the requester, but response timing acted as an oracle that allowed instance secrets to be extracted character by character. An extracted secret could then be used in a separate interaction with an internal service to obtain remote code execution on the appliance. Exploitation required network access to the instance and was unauthenticated when private mode was disabled, or required any authenticated user when private mode was enabled. This vulnerability affected GitHub Enterprise Server versions 3.17 through 3.22 and was fixed in versions 3.22.1, 3.21.6, 3.20.8, 3.19.12, 3.18.15, and 3.17.21. This vulnerability was reported through the GitHub Bug Bounty program.
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 without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
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) → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- 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:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/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.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCNoneSubsequent-system confidentiality: No direct loss is represented by this metric.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
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
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 not verified
- Affected
- Enterprise Server: 3.17.0 < 3.17.*, 3.18.0 < 3.18.*, 3.19.0 < 3.19.*, 3.20.0 < 3.20.*, 3.21.0 < 3.21.*, 3.22.0 < 3.22.*
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- 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 22 Sept 2026 · Last source change 23 Sept 2026, 15:26 UTC · CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-23
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-84872
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
- Vendor guidanceAuthoritative vendor guidance changed: added vendor advisory: docs.github.com/release-notes.product-cna@github.com ↗
- Before
- no authoritative guidance recorded
- After
- vendor advisory: docs.github.com/release-notes
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-84872 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-84872"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.