Open RedirectWeakness · CWE-601

CVE-2026-10837

MEDIUM · 5.1 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-06-17
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
58/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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
Open redirection vulnerability due to insufficient validation of the X-Forwarded-Host HTTP header. An attacker could create manipulated links that, when opened by a victim, cause the victim to be redirected to domains controlled by the attacker, enabling phishing or deception attacks with limited impact on confidentiality and integrity.

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 · high confidence

Open redirection vulnerability due to insufficient validation of the X-Forwarded-Host HTTP header. The application uses this header value to determine redirect destinations without proper allowlist validation, allowing attackers to specify arbitrary attacker-controlled domains that victims will be redirected to.

MitigationImplement strict allowlist validation for X-Forwarded-Host header values, rejecting any domains not explicitly permitted, or disable trust in this header if not required by the application architecture.

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
Authentication
X
User interaction
A
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 if X-Forwarded-Host header processing is enabled
    Search application configuration files and code for any usage of 'X-Forwarded-Host' header. Look for patterns like request.getHeader('X-Forwarded-Host'), req.headers['x-forwarded-host'], or equivalent in your language/framework. Check proxy configurations (e.g., nginx, Apache, load balancers) that may forward this header.
    Affected if The application reads or trusts the X-Forwarded-Host header for any purpose
  2. Locate redirect functionality that uses host header values
    Search the codebase for redirect methods (e.g., response.redirect(), header('Location:'), return RedirectResponse()) that incorporate host or domain values. Identify which redirects use the X-Forwarded-Host or similar host headers as part of the destination URL.
    Affected if Redirect logic uses the X-Forwarded-Host header value to construct the Location URL
  3. Examine redirect logic for allowlist validation
    Review the redirect code identified in step 2 to determine if it validates the domain against an explicit allowlist of permitted domains before performing the redirect. Look for validation functions that check if the host matches predefined safe domains.
    Affected if No allowlist validation exists, or the redirect accepts any domain from the X-Forwarded-Host header without restriction
  4. Test redirect behavior with arbitrary X-Forwarded-Host value
    Send a request with an arbitrary domain in the X-Forwarded-Host header (e.g., X-Forwarded-Host: attacker.com) and observe if the application redirects to that domain. Use curl -H 'X-Forwarded-Host: example.com' <target-url> and check the Location response header or final destination.
    Affected if The application redirects to the attacker-controlled domain specified in the X-Forwarded-Host header

User is affected if the application uses the X-Forwarded-Host header to determine redirect destinations without strict allowlist validation of permitted domains.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict allowlist validation for X-Forwarded-Host header values, rejecting any domains not explicitly permitted, or disable trust in this header if not required by the application architecture.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-10837 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-10837 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