CVE-2026-42261
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 · uneditedPromptHub is an all-in-one AI toolbox for prompt, skill, and agent management. From version 0.4.9 to before version 0.5.4, apps/web/src/routes/skills.ts exposes an authenticated endpoint POST /api/skills/fetch-remote that fetches a user-supplied URL server-side and reflects the response body (up to 5 MB) back to the caller. The SSRF protection in apps/web/src/utils/remote-http.ts (isPrivateIPv6) attempts to block private/loopback destinations, but multiple alternate-but-valid IPv6 representations bypass the check. The bypasses reach any IPv4 address (loopback, RFC1918, link-local) via IPv4-mapped IPv6 in hex form, and the canonical ::1 via any representation that isn't the literal string "::1". Any authenticated user (role: user or admin) can trigger the SSRF. On deployments configured with ALLOW_REGISTRATION=true — a supported and documented configuration — this means any internet user who can register. This issue has been patched in version 0.5.4.
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 analysisThe application accepts input without confirming it is well-formed or within expected bounds, so malformed data can push the program into states its author never anticipated. Attackers probe these gaps to trigger crashes, bypass logic, or feed tainted values into more dangerous operations downstream. Remediating it well means validating and normalising every input at the boundary against a strict allow-list — not merely filtering known-bad values.
General guidance for the improper input validation class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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>= 0.4.9, < 0.5.4CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
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 · scoped0.5.4
Prompthub v0.5.4
- Identify the currently deployed version of Prompthub by checking the package.json or version file
- Ensure the current version is >= 0.4.9 and < 0.5.4 to confirm vulnerability
- Upgrade to version 0.5.4 or later by updating the version in package.json or using a package manager command like: npm install [email protected] or pip install prompthub==0.5.4 (depending on package manager)
- After upgrading, verify the new version is running by checking the application startup logs or version endpoint
- Test that the SSRF protection now correctly blocks IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses and alternate ::1 representations by attempting to access http://[::1] or http://[0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1] through the /api/skills/fetch-remote endpoint (the request should be blocked)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42261 — 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-2026-42261 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