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

CVE-2026-2264

CRITICAL · 9.2 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-05-26
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 in the Google Cloud Apigee SetIntegrationRequest policy allowed remote attackers to perform Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) and exfiltrate service account access tokens. For successful exploitation, an administrator must initially establish an insecure configuration of the API proxy.

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 SetIntegrationRequest policy in Google Cloud Apigee contains an SSRF vulnerability that allows remote attackers to make the API proxy perform arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or external resources. When exploited, attackers can target internal metadata endpoints to exfiltrate service account access tokens, potentially gaining broader access to GCP resources.

MitigationAdministrators should review and secure API proxy configurations, restrict outbound network access, disable unnecessary policies, and implement proper input validation on the SetIntegrationRequest policy to prevent requests to unauthorized endpoints.

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
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/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:Amber

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 SetIntegrationRequest policy is in use
    Review your Apigee API proxy configurations (usually in apiproxy/policies/ or through Apigee UI/API listing all policies). Search for <SetIntegrationRequest> policy elements.
    Affected if SetIntegrationRequest policy exists in any API proxy configuration
  2. Inspect policy URL configuration for insecure patterns
    Examine the SetIntegrationRequest policy XML file. Look for elements like <URL>, <ServiceAccountName>, or <ResourceName>. Check if the URL value uses variables or allows dynamic input rather than hardcoded trusted endpoints.
    Affected if The policy allows dynamic URL specification through variables or non-whitelisted endpoints
  3. Check for service account credential exposure
    Review whether the policy is configured with a service account that has elevated privileges or access to sensitive resources. Look for <ServiceAccountName> elements and verify what IAM roles that service account holds.
    Affected if The policy uses a service account with permissions to access sensitive Google Cloud resources
  4. Verify URL allowlist enforcement
    Check if there are any proxy or environment-level policies, flow hooks, or scripts that restrict SetIntegrationRequest URLs to a predefined allowlist of trusted endpoints.
    Affected if No URL allowlist or restriction mechanism exists for the SetIntegrationRequest policy
  5. Audit recent API proxy deployments
    Review deployment history for any API proxies containing SetIntegrationRequest policies. Check who deployed them and whether the configuration follows secure baseline patterns.
    Affected if Recent deployments contain SetIntegrationRequest with configurations that permit arbitrary URLs

You are affected if any SetIntegrationRequest policy in your Apigee environment is configured to allow arbitrary or non-whitelisted URL specifications, particularly when paired with a privileged service account.

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

Administrators should review and secure API proxy configurations, restrict outbound network access, disable unnecessary policies, and implement proper input validation on the SetIntegrationRequest policy to prevent requests to unauthorized endpoints.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,500
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-2264 — 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-2026-2264 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