CVE-2026-4215
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 security flaw has been discovered in FlowCI flow-core-x up to 1.23.01. The impacted element is the function Save of the file core/src/main/java/com/flowci/core/config/service/ConfigServiceImpl.java of the component SMTP Host Handler. The manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been released to the public and may 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 · moderate confidenceFlowCI flow-core-x versions up to 1.23.01 contain a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the SMTP Host Handler's Save function within ConfigServiceImpl.java. An attacker can manipulate SMTP configuration parameters to make the server perform requests to arbitrary internal or external resources, potentially accessing internal services, metadata endpoints, or internal network infrastructure.
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 FlowCI flow-core-x installationLocate the flow-core-x application directory or check running processes for the FlowCI platformAffected if FlowCI flow-core-x is not installed or the product is not present in the environment
-
Determine installed versionCheck the version of flow-core-x (e.g., look for version file, check pom.xml, or inspect application metadata) and compare to 1.23.01Affected if Installed version is 1.23.01 or any earlier version (the vulnerability affects versions up to 1.23.01)
-
Verify SMTP configuration accessLocate the SMTP configuration interface in the FlowCI admin panel or configuration filesAffected if User has access to modify SMTP settings in the FlowCI application
-
Check ConfigServiceImpl.java presenceInspect the application codebase for ConfigServiceImpl.java file in the flow-core-x installationAffected if The vulnerable ConfigServiceImpl.java component exists in the deployment
-
Review SMTP host configuration settingsExamine current SMTP host configuration values in the application config or database for unusual hostnames, IP addresses, or non-standard portsAffected if SMTP host configuration allows arbitrary hostname/IP input and is not restricted to an allowlist
The environment is affected if FlowCI flow-core-x version 1.23.01 or earlier is installed and the SMTP configuration feature is accessible to users, allowing them to specify arbitrary hosts.
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 allowlist-based input validation for SMTP host configurations, restrict outbound network access from the server, and validate all user-supplied hostnames/IPs before use in network requests. Consider adding network segmentation to prevent the application server from accessing internal infrastructure.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4215 — 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-2026-4215 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