CVE-2026-15317
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 security flaw has been discovered in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. Affected by this vulnerability is the function WebFetchTool.Execute of the file pkg/tools/integration/web.go of the component Guarded Web Fetch Flow. The manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The reported GitHub issue was closed automatically due to inactivity.
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 confidenceA Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the WebFetchTool.Execute function within pkg/tools/integration/web.go of Sipeed PicoClaw (versions up to 0.2.9). The vulnerability affects the Guarded Web Fetch Flow component, allowing remote attackers to manipulate the function to make the server perform arbitrary requests to attacker-controlled URLs.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Identify Sipeed PicoClaw installation and versionLocate the Sipeed PicoClaw installation directory and check the version file or binary. Common locations include /opt/picoclaw, /usr/local/picoclaw, or the current working directory. Run 'picoclaw --version' or inspect version metadata in the installation folder.Affected if The installed version is 0.2.9 or any version prior to it.
-
Confirm WebFetchTool is in useSearch the codebase or configuration for imports and usage of pkg/tools/integration/web.go. Look for references to 'WebFetchTool' or 'WebFetch' in your application code, configuration files, or runtime logs.Affected if WebFetchTool.Execute is being called in your application or service.
-
Inspect the vulnerable function in web.goOpen pkg/tools/integration/web.go and locate the Execute function. Check if the function accepts URL parameters and performs HTTP requests without strict validation.Affected if The Execute function performs network requests using user-supplied or configurable URLs without allowlist-based validation.
-
Review URL validation logicExamine the WebFetchTool.Execute function for any URL validation, allowlists, or hostname restrictions. Search for patterns like url.Parse, validation functions, or allowedHosts configurations.Affected if No strict allowlist-based URL validation is implemented, or validation can be bypassed.
You are affected if Sipeed PicoClaw version 0.2.9 or earlier is running and the WebFetchTool feature is enabled with insufficient URL validation.
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 URLs/hosts permitted in WebFetchTool.Execute, or upgrade to a patched version if available. Network segmentation can provide additional defense-in-depth.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15317 — 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-2026-15317 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