CVE-2026-15624
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 has been found in nextlevelbuilder GoClaw 3.13.3-beta.3. Affected by this vulnerability is the function bytePlusDownloadVideo of the file internal/tools/create_video_byteplus.go of the component invoke Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument output.video_url leads to server-side request forgery. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 confidenceServer-side request forgery (SSRF) in the bytePlusDownloadVideo function where the output.video_url argument is not validated before being used in server-side requests, allowing remote attackers to make the server request arbitrary 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
- 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.
-
Locate the bytePlusDownloadVideo functionSearch your codebase or application modules for the function name 'bytePlusDownloadVideo' - inspect source code, binaries, or loaded libraries to confirm its presence in your environmentAffected if The function exists in your deployed application code or libraries
-
Inspect video_url parameter handlingExamine the function implementation to see how the output.video_url argument is processed - look for any validation, sanitization, or filtering logic applied to this parameter before server-side requests are madeAffected if No input validation or allowlist filtering is performed on the video_url parameter before it is used in HTTP requests
-
Confirm external request capabilityReview the function code to verify that it actually performs HTTP/HTTPS requests using the video_url value - check for use of fetch, curl, file_get_contents, or similar network request mechanismsAffected if The function makes network requests using the unsanitized video_url value
-
Test URL injection possibilityIf you have testing capability, attempt to provide a non-video URL (such as http://169.254.169.254/) as the video_url parameter and observe whether the server makes a request to that arbitrary URLAffected if The server successfully makes requests to attacker-controlled URLs
-
Check network segmentationReview your firewall rules, network policies, or application-level restrictions to determine if outbound requests from the server are restricted to trusted domains onlyAffected if No network-level restrictions exist to prevent requests to arbitrary internal or external URLs
You are affected if the bytePlusDownloadVideo function exists in your environment and the video_url parameter is used in server-side requests without validation or network restrictions.
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 allowlist filtering on the video_url parameter to restrict requests to trusted domains only; also apply network segmentation to limit SSRF impact.
- 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-2026-15624 — 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-2026-15624 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