CVE-2026-4907
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 vulnerability was identified in Page-Replica Page Replica up to e4a7f52e75093ee318b4d5a9a9db6751050d2ad0. The impacted element is the function sitemap.fetch of the file /sitemap of the component Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. 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 · high confidenceServer-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the sitemap.fetch function of the Page-Replica application. An attacker can manipulate the 'url' parameter in the /sitemap endpoint to cause the server to make arbitrary HTTP requests to attacker-controlled or internal resources.
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 Page-Replica installationSearch for Page-Replica application files, processes, or services running in your environment. Check for any binary, script, or service named 'page-replica' or related to sitemap handling.Affected if Page-Replica application is present and running in your environment
-
Verify /sitemap endpoint accessibilityReview your web server or application routing configuration to confirm whether a route handling /sitemap requests exists and is publicly or internally accessible.Affected if The /sitemap endpoint is exposed and reachable by potential attackers
-
Confirm sitemap.fetch function is enabledInspect the application configuration files or runtime settings to determine if the sitemap.fetch feature is explicitly enabled or if it's loaded as an active module.Affected if The sitemap.fetch function is enabled and operational in the deployment
-
Check URL validation configurationExamine application configuration, middleware settings, or code that handles the 'url' parameter in the sitemap endpoint. Look for any allowlist, blocklist, or validation logic applied to this parameter.Affected if No strict allowlist-based validation exists for the url parameter, or internal IP/localhost requests are not explicitly blocked
You are affected if the Page-Replica application is deployed with the /sitemap endpoint and sitemap.fetch function enabled, and the url parameter lacks strict input validation restricting requests to trusted domains and blocking internal resources.
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 · scopedImplement strict allowlist-based input validation for the URL parameter, restricting requests to trusted domains only. Additionally, block requests to internal IP addresses, private network ranges, and localhost to prevent internal resource access.
- 1. Implement input validation for the 'url' parameter in the /sitemap endpoint - validate that the provided URL uses allowed protocols (http/https only) and restrict to an allowlist of permitted domains
- 2. Add network segmentation to prevent the application server from making arbitrary outbound connections to internal infrastructure
- 3. Configure firewall rules or network policies to block unnecessary outbound connections from the server
- 4. Disable or restrict the sitemap.fetch function if not essential for the application's core functionality
- 5. Implement request timeout and size limits for the URL parameter to mitigate potential abuse
- 6. Consider adding authentication/authorization controls to the /sitemap endpoint
- 7. Review and restrict the application's ability to resolve internal hostnames or access cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254)
- 8. Monitor and log all requests to the /sitemap endpoint for suspicious patterns
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4907 — 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-2026-4907 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