CVE-2026-10287
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was determined in SourceCodester SEO Meta Tag Extractor 1.0. This vulnerability affects the function get_headers of the file /index.php. This manipulation of the argument url causes server-side request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.
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 confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in SourceCodester SEO Meta Tag Extractor 1.0. The application uses the PHP get_headers() function in /index.php to fetch HTTP headers from a user-supplied URL passed via the 'url' parameter. Because there is no validation of this input, an attacker can manipulate the URL to cause the server to make requests to internal infrastructure, cloud metadata services, or other internal resources that should not be exposed.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm SEO Meta Tag Extractor is installedLocate the web application directory and identify the installed version by checking version files, headers, or application metadataAffected if The application is running and version 1.0 is confirmed
-
Verify the vulnerable endpoint existsCheck for the presence of /index.php in the web root and confirm the 'url' parameter is accepted via GET or POST requestAffected if The index.php file exists and accepts a 'url' parameter
-
Inspect the get_headers implementationOpen /index.php and locate the get_headers function call that processes the 'url' parameter. Search for code that passes user input directly to this function without validationAffected if The code uses get_headers with the 'url' parameter without sanitization or allowlist validation
-
Test for SSRF accessibilitySubmit a crafted 'url' parameter value pointing to an internal resource (e.g., http://127.0.0.1 or an internal IP) and observe if the application makes a request to that endpointAffected if The application successfully fetches or attempts to fetch the provided internal URL, indicating no protection is in place
If the application is SourceCodester SEO Meta Tag Extractor version 1.0, the index.php file contains the get_headers function using the 'url' parameter without input validation, and the endpoint is accessible, the environment is affected by this SSRF vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor dataImplement strict allowlist-based validation for the URL parameter, ensuring only approved domain patterns or explicitly permitted hosts can be requested. Additionally, restrict outbound connections to prevent access to internal networks (e.g., 127.0.0.1, 169.254.169.254, 10.x.x.x, 192.168.x.x).
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10287 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10287 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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