CVE-2026-39922
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 · uneditedGeoNode versions 4.4.5 and 5.0.2 (and prior within their respective releases) contain a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the service registration endpoint that allows authenticated attackers to trigger outbound network requests to arbitrary URLs by submitting a crafted service URL during form validation. Attackers can probe internal network targets including loopback addresses, RFC1918 private IP ranges, link-local addresses, and cloud metadata services by exploiting insufficient URL validation in the WMS service handler without private IP filtering or allowlist enforcement.
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 confidenceGeoNode versions 4.4.5 and 5.0.2 contain a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the service registration endpoint. Authenticated attackers can submit crafted service URLs during WMS service handler form validation to trigger outbound network requests to arbitrary URLs, enabling probing of internal network targets including loopback addresses, RFC1918 private IP ranges, link-local addresses, and cloud metadata services due to insufficient URL validation without private IP filtering or allowlist enforcement.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 4.0.0, < 4.4.5>= 5.0.0, < 5.0.2CVSS 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 GeoNode installation and versionRun 'pip show geonode' or check your package manager for the installed Geonode version. If using a deployment method, check the version file or docker image tag.Affected if Installed version is >= 4.0.0 and < 4.4.5, or >= 5.0.0 and < 5.0.2
-
Verify WMS service handler is enabledCheck the GeoNode settings file (local_settings.py or settings.py) for 'WMS_HANDLER' or 'WMS_SERVICE' related configuration entries, or inspect the admin panel under 'GeoServer' or 'Services' settings.Affected if WMS service handler module is enabled and accessible to authenticated users
-
Confirm authenticated service registration accessLog in as a standard authenticated user (non-admin) and navigate to the service registration interface, typically found under 'Layers' > 'Add Layer' > 'Service' or similar endpoint for registering OGC services.Affected if Authenticated users can access the WMS service registration endpoint without admin privileges
-
Inspect URL validation in service handlerReview the WMS service handler source code or configuration files for URL validation logic. Look for functions that validate service URLs during form submission, particularly checking for absence of private IP filtering.Affected if No private IP address filtering (loopback 127.0.0.1, RFC1918 ranges 10.x.x.x, 172.16-31.x.x, 192.168.x.x, link-local 169.254.x.x) is implemented in the URL validation routine
If GeoNode version falls within the affected ranges AND the WMS service handler is enabled with service registration accessible to authenticated users, the environment is vulnerable to SSRF attacks via 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.
dbcve · scoped4.4.55.0.2
Implement strict URL validation in the WMS service handler with proper private IP address filtering (loopback, RFC1918, link-local) and consider implementing an allowlist approach for permitted external services to prevent SSRF attacks.
Geonode 4.4.5 (for 4.x users) or Geonode 5.0.2 (for 5.x users)
- Identify current Geonode version using the admin interface or version check command
- For Geonode 4.x: Upgrade to version 4.4.5 or later
- For Geonode 5.x: Upgrade to version 5.0.2 or later
- Use the package manager or deployment method appropriate to your installation (e.g., pip install, Docker, or platform-specific package manager)
- Verify the upgrade by checking the Geonode version after installation
- Test the service registration functionality to confirm the SSRF vulnerability is resolved
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-39922 — 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-2026-39922 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