CVE-2026-45561
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 · uneditedRoxy-WI is a web interface for managing Haproxy, Nginx, Apache and Keepalived servers. In versions 8.2.6.4 and prior, the /smon/agent/{version,uptime,status,checks}/<server_ip> family of routes takes the URL path component verbatim into requests.get(f'http://{server_ip}:{agent_port}/...'). The path component is constrained only by Flask's default URL converter, which permits any value (including IPv4 literals like 169.254.169.254, RFC1918 ranges, and 127.0.0.1). At time of publication, there are no publicly available patches.
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 confidenceRoxy-WI versions 8.2.6.4 and prior contain an unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. The server_ip parameter in /smon/agent/{version,uptime,status,checks}/<server_ip> routes is passed directly into requests.get() without validation, allowing attackers to make the server request arbitrary URLs including cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254), internal RFC1918 addresses, and localhost.
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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm Roxy-WI is runningIdentify the Roxy-WI web service or process running on the system (check for roxy-wi processes or port listeners on common web ports)Affected if Roxy-WI is installed and running
-
Check installed versionDetermine the installed Roxy-WI version from the application interface, package manager, or installation files and compare to 8.2.6.4Affected if Installed version is 8.2.6.4 or prior
-
Verify /smon/agent/ endpoints are accessibleAttempt to access one of the affected routes: /smon/agent/version/<ip>, /smon/agent/uptime/<ip>, /smon/agent/status/<ip>, or /smon/agent/checks/<ip> without authenticationAffected if The endpoint responds without requiring authentication
-
Test for SSRF via server_ip parameterSend a request to an affected endpoint with server_ip set to 169.254.169.254 (cloud metadata endpoint) or an internal IP address and observe if the server attempts to fetch content from that addressAffected if The server successfully makes a request to the supplied IP address, indicating lack of input validation
Environment is affected if Roxy-WI version 8.2.6.4 or prior is running with unauthenticated access to /smon/agent/ routes that accept arbitrary server_ip values without 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.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation using an IP address allowlist, block access to metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254/32) and private network ranges at the application or network level, and add a WAF rule to detect SSRF attack patterns in the server_ip parameter.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-45561 — 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-2026-45561 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