CVE-2026-15500
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 weakness has been identified in AstrBotDevs AstrBot up to 4.25.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function get_online_plugins of the file astrbot/dashboard/routes/plugin.py of the component market_list Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument custom_registry can lead to server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 confidenceServer-side request forgery (SSRF) in AstrBot dashboard's market_list endpoint. The get_online_plugins function in astrbot/dashboard/routes/plugin.py accepts a user-controllable custom_registry parameter that allows an attacker to make the server initiate requests to arbitrary URLs, potentially exposing internal services or performing reconnaissance.
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify AstrBot installation and versionLocate the AstrBot installation directory and check the version file (e.g., pyproject.toml, setup.py, or version.py in the astrbot package root)Affected if AstrBot is installed and the version falls within any affected range (if known)
-
Locate the vulnerable dashboard route fileFind the file astrbot/dashboard/routes/plugin.py in the AstrBot installation directoryAffected if The file exists in the installation, indicating the dashboard module is present
-
Examine the get_online_plugins functionOpen astrbot/dashboard/routes/plugin.py and locate the get_online_plugins function; check for the custom_registry parameter handlingAffected if The function accepts a custom_registry parameter without proper validation
-
Check for URL validation on custom_registryReview the code that processes the custom_registry parameter - look for any URL validation, allowlisting, or sanitization before the request is madeAffected if No validation or allowlisting is implemented on the custom_registry parameter before the HTTP request
-
Verify dashboard is accessibleConfirm that the AstrBot dashboard feature is enabled and accessible (check configuration for dashboard-related settings)Affected if The dashboard is enabled, making the vulnerable endpoint accessible
If AstrBot is installed with the dashboard enabled and the affected file contains the get_online_plugins function processing a custom_registry parameter without validation, the environment is vulnerable to SSRF.
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 input validation and allowlisting for the custom_registry parameter to restrict URLs to trusted domains. Consider disabling the custom_registry functionality if not essential, or add network-level controls to prevent the server from making outbound connections to internal infrastructure.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15500 — 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-2026-15500 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