CVE-2026-59702
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 · uneditedrepomix contains a server-side request forgery vulnerability in the POST /api/pack endpoint that allows unauthenticated attackers to make arbitrary outbound requests. The endpoint fails to properly validate http://, https://, and file:// URLs before passing them to git clone, enabling attackers to access private network addresses, GCP metadata services, or local filesystem paths.
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 confidencerepomix POST /api/pack endpoint lacks proper URL validation before passing user-supplied URLs to git clone, enabling unauthenticated attackers to perform SSRF attacks via http://, https://, or file:// protocols to access internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or read local filesystem files.
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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/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 repomix installationIdentify if repomix is installed in the environment by checking for the package via package manager or looking for repomix in node_modules, or check running processes for repomixAffected if repomix is installed and running as a service exposing the API
-
Verify /api/pack endpoint existsCheck if the /api/pack endpoint is available by reviewing application routing configuration or attempting a test request to the endpointAffected if The /api/pack endpoint is exposed and accessible
-
Check endpoint authenticationReview the /api/pack endpoint configuration to determine if authentication is required before allowing requestsAffected if The endpoint is unauthenticated or allows anonymous access
-
Inspect URL validation logicExamine the source code or configuration handling URL parameters in the /api/pack handler to determine if allowlist validation, private IP blocking, or protocol restrictions are implementedAffected if No URL validation exists, or validation only checks basic format without blocking file:// protocol, private IP ranges, or cloud metadata endpoints
-
Test URL parameter injectionIf authorized in a test environment, send a request to /api/pack with a URL parameter pointing to internal infrastructure (e.g., http://127.0.0.1:port, file:///etc/passwd) to confirm the vulnerabilityAffected if The application accepts and processes arbitrary URLs including file:// protocol or internal network addresses
If repomix is running with an unauthenticated /api/pack endpoint that accepts user-supplied URLs without strict allowlist-based validation, the environment is affected by this SSRF vulnerability.
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 allowlist-based URL validation rejecting private IP ranges, cloud metadata endpoints, and file:// protocol; consider using a sandboxed proxy for external requests.
- 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-2026-59702 — 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-2026-59702 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