dbcve.org
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)Weakness · CWE-918

CVE-2026-15668

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-07-14
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
69/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click 5 weeks old

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
A vulnerability has been found in louisho5 picobot up to 0.2.0. This vulnerability affects the function WebTool.Execute of the file internal/agent/tools/web.go of the component web Tool. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

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 confidence

The picobot application contains an SSRF vulnerability in the WebTool.Execute function within internal/agent/tools/web.go. The function accepts a user-controllable URL parameter without proper validation, allowing remote attackers to cause the server to make arbitrary HTTP requests to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or external systems.

MitigationImplement strict allowlist-based URL validation to restrict URLs to expected domains and protocols. Disable or restrict the web tool's URL-fetching capability if not essential, and validate that URLs resolve to allowed IP ranges to prevent internal resource access.

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate picobot installation
    Search for the picobot binary on the system using 'which picobot' on Linux/macOS or 'where picobot' on Windows. Also check common installation paths like /usr/local/bin/, /opt/, or the user's home directory.
    Affected if The picobot binary is found on the system.
  2. Determine installed version
    Run 'picobot --version' or 'picobot -v' to retrieve the version number of the installed picobot application.
    Affected if The version number returned is lower than the patched version or cannot be determined (indicating an older release).
  3. Verify WebTool is exposed
    Check if the WebTool or web-fetching functionality is accessible in the picobot agent. Review the agent's enabled tools list or configuration file (often in config.yaml, settings.json, or similar) to confirm WebTool.Execute is listed as an available capability.
    Affected if WebTool.Execute appears in the enabled tools list and accepts user input.
  4. Inspect web.go for missing validation
    Locate the file internal/agent/tools/web.go in the picobot installation directory or source code repository. Examine the WebTool.Execute function for URL validation logic (look for allowlist patterns, hostname validation, or IP range checking).
    Affected if The function accepts a URL parameter without validating the hostname or restricting to allowed domains/protocols.
  5. Review URL-fetching configuration
    Examine picobot's configuration files for any URL-allowlist settings, whitelist entries for permitted domains, or security controls governing the web tool. Check config files in the working directory, ~/.picobot/, or /etc/picobot/.
    Affected if No URL allowlist, domain restrictions, or IP range limitations are defined in the configuration.

If picobot is installed, the WebTool is enabled, and no URL validation or allowlist restrictions are configured in web.go or the configuration files, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2026-15668.

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-based URL validation to restrict URLs to expected domains and protocols. Disable or restrict the web tool's URL-fetching capability if not essential, and validate that URLs resolve to allowed IP ranges to prevent internal resource access.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15668 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-15668 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