CVE-2026-62143
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 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protection bypass existed in the html_to_markdown expansion module of misp-modules. The module attempts to prevent requests to loopback, private, link-local, and other restricted IP address ranges. However, IP addresses were compared against the blocked ranges without first normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. An authenticated attacker able to invoke the module could supply an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, such as: http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/ http://[::ffff:169.254.169.254]/ Alternatively, the attacker could use a hostname that resolves to an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. These addresses were treated as IPv6 addresses and therefore did not match the corresponding blocked IPv4 ranges. Successful exploitation could cause the misp-modules server to connect to services available through its loopback interface, internal network, or link-local network. This could expose internal web services, administrative interfaces, or cloud instance metadata, with retrieved content potentially returned to the attacker as converted Markdown. The vulnerability has been addressed by normalising IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses to their underlying IPv4 representation before applying the blocked-range checks. URLs without a valid hostname are now also rejected.
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 analysisThe server can be induced to make requests to a URL an attacker controls, turning it into a proxy into internal networks and cloud metadata services. It's especially dangerous behind a trusted network boundary. The fix is strict allow-listing of destinations and blocking access to internal address ranges.
General guidance for the server-side request forgery (ssrf) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
- Authentication
- Y
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/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:Y/R:X/V:X/RE:M/U:Green
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 · scopedmisp-modules latest release after commit 3bae4108
- Identify the current version of misp-modules installed in your environment
- Review the git history or release notes to confirm whether commit 3bae4108a3ba1e507727d5264697fd7303ba0b89 has been applied
- If not applied, cherry-pick or apply the specific commit 3bae4108a3ba1e507727d5264697fd7303ba0b89 to your local repository
- Alternatively, pull the latest code from the misp-modules repository which should contain the fix
- Restart the misp-modules service after applying the patch
- Verify the fix by testing with sample IPv4-mapped IPv6 URLs such as 'http://[::ffff:127.0.0.1]/' and 'http://[::ffff:169.254.169.254]/' to confirm they are now blocked
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-62143 — 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-2026-62143 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