CWE-367Weakness · CWE-367

CVE-2026-42336

MEDIUM · 5.1 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 →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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
MaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. MaxKB 2.8.0 and prior are vulnerable to a server-side request forgery (SSRF) bypass in the OSS file service URL fetch functionality due to inconsistent DNS resolution between validation and actual request execution, allowing attackers to access internal network services. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.8.1.

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

MaxKB versions 2.8.0 and prior contain an SSRF bypass vulnerability in the OSS file service URL fetch feature. The vulnerability stems from inconsistent DNS resolution between the validation phase and actual request execution, allowing attackers to bypass validation checks and access internal network services.

MitigationUpgrade MaxKB to version 2.8.1 or later to address the DNS resolution inconsistency. Additionally, implement network segmentation to limit exposure of internal services.

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
High
Privileges
Low
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

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

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 MaxKB installation version
    Locate the version file or use the package management system to query the installed MaxKB version. Common locations include a VERSION file, package.json, or running a version command provided by the application.
    Affected if The installed version is 2.8.0 or any version prior to 2.8.1
  2. Locate OSS file service configuration
    Search for configuration files related to OSS (Object Storage Service) integration. Look for settings that enable or configure external URL fetching for file services.
    Affected if OSS file service URL fetch functionality is enabled in the configuration
  3. Verify DNS resolution behavior
    Test the URL fetch feature with a controlled DNS resolution scenario to observe if the validation phase and request execution resolve the same hostname to different IP addresses.
    Affected if DNS resolution differs between validation and execution phases, allowing internal network access
  4. Check network access controls
    Review network policies, firewall rules, and application-level restrictions governing outbound connections from the server hosting MaxKB.
    Affected if The server can make outbound HTTP requests to arbitrary URLs without proper filtering

A MaxKB installation is affected if it runs version 2.8.0 or prior and has OSS file service URL fetch functionality enabled, as the DNS resolution inconsistency between validation and execution allows SSRF bypass to internal services.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade MaxKB to version 2.8.1 or later to address the DNS resolution inconsistency. Additionally, implement network segmentation to limit exposure of internal services.

Recommended fix High confidence

2.8.1

  1. Upgrade MaxKB to version 2.8.1 or later to resolve the SSRF bypass vulnerability in the OSS file service URL fetch functionality.
  2. Verify the upgrade by checking the MaxKB version after installation.
  3. If using a package manager or container deployment, update your deployment configuration to reference version 2.8.1.

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,210
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,936.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-42336 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-42336 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