CVE-2026-5346
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 determined in huimeicloud hm_editor up to 2.2.3. Impacted is the function client.get of the file src/mcp-server.js of the component image-to-base64 Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument url can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. 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 huimeicloud hm_editor's image-to-base64 endpoint (src/mcp-server.js). The client.get function uses the user-supplied 'url' parameter without validation, allowing attackers to make the server fetch arbitrary URLs including 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 if huimeicloud hm_editor is installedSearch for hm_editor package files or directory structures. Check node_modules, package.json, or installation directories for 'hm_editor' or 'huimeicloud' references.Affected if The product is present in the environment
-
Locate the vulnerable source fileSearch for src/mcp-server.js within the hm_editor installation directory.Affected if The file src/mcp-server.js exists in the hm_editor installation
-
Verify the image-to-base64 endpoint existsExamine src/mcp-server.js and look for an endpoint or function handling image-to-base64 conversion, or check API routes for an endpoint accepting a 'url' parameter.Affected if The image-to-base64 endpoint or handler is present and accepts a 'url' parameter
-
Check for unvalidated URL parameter handlingIn src/mcp-server.js, locate the client.get function call that processes the user-provided URL. Determine if any validation, allowlisting, or sanitization is performed on this URL before the request is made.Affected if The client.get function is called with a user-controllable URL without validation or allowlisting
The environment is affected if huimeicloud hm_editor is installed and the image-to-base64 endpoint in src/mcp-server.js passes the URL parameter to client.get without validation or URL allowlisting.
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 URL validation with allowlist filtering, disable requests to internal/private IP ranges and local resources, and add authentication/authorization controls to the endpoint.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5346 — 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-2026-5346 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