dbcve.org
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)Weakness · CWE-918

CVE-2026-10274

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-01
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
69/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
A vulnerability was determined in indrasishbanerjee aem-mcp-server up to b5f833aef9b5dfd17a5991b3b18a8a11edbdc583. This impacts the function getAssetMetadata of the file src/mcp-server.ts of the component Axios Request Flow. Executing a manipulation of the argument assetPath can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · moderate confidence

This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the aem-mcp-server's getAssetMetadata function. The assetPath argument is passed directly to an Axios HTTP request without validation, allowing an attacker to manipulate the request URL to target internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or other internal infrastructure.

MitigationImplement strict input validation on the assetPath parameter using a URL allowlist or by parsing and validating URLs before passing them to Axios. Consider using the WHATWG URL API to verify hostname and protocol before making requests.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify aem-mcp-server installation
    Locate the aem-mcp-server package in your environment - check node_modules, project dependencies, or running services. Look for package.json or package-lock.json containing 'aem-mcp-server'.
    Affected if aem-mcp-server is present in your environment
  2. Determine the installed version
    Check the version in package.json or package-lock.json, or run 'npm list aem-mcp-server' if installed as a dependency. Compare against any available fixed versions from the maintainer.
    Affected if the version lacks the security fix for the assetPath validation vulnerability
  3. Verify getAssetMetadata function exposure
    Locate src/mcp-server.ts and confirm the getAssetMetadata function exists. Determine if it is exposed through an API endpoint, MCP tool, or other interface that accepts external input.
    Affected if the getAssetMetadata function is exposed and accepts user-controlled assetPath input
  4. Inspect assetPath parameter handling
    Review the getAssetMetadata function code in src/mcp-server.ts to check if assetPath undergoes validation, sanitization, or allowlist filtering before being used in requests.
    Affected if no validation exists on assetPath, allowing arbitrary URLs or internal resources to be specified

Your environment is affected if aem-mcp-server is running with an unpatched version where getAssetMetadata accepts unchecked assetPath input, enabling SSRF attacks.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation on the assetPath parameter using a URL allowlist or by parsing and validating URLs before passing them to Axios. Consider using the WHATWG URL API to verify hostname and protocol before making requests.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence
  1. Review the getAssetMetadata function in src/mcp-server.ts to identify where the assetPath parameter is used in Axios requests
  2. Implement strict input validation on the assetPath parameter to ensure it only contains expected, safe values (e.g., validate against an allowlist of permitted domains/paths, or reject URLs that point to internal/network resources)
  3. Add URL scheme validation to reject dangerous schemes like file://, gopher://, ftp://, etc.
  4. Implement request timeout and size limits on Axios requests to mitigate potential abuse
  5. Add authentication/authorization checks before allowing arbitrary assetPath values to be used in requests
  6. Validate that the assetPath does not resolve to internal IP addresses (127.0.0.1, localhost, 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x, etc.)

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10274 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10274 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data