dbcve.org
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)Weakness · CWE-918

CVE-2026-6617

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
69/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
A vulnerability was detected in langgenius dify up to 0.6.9. This vulnerability affects the function get_api_tool_provider_remote_schema of the file api/services/tools/api_tools_manage_service.py of the component ApiToolManageService. Performing a manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. 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 · moderate confidence

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in langgenius dify up to version 0.6.9. The get_api_tool_provider_remote_schema function in ApiToolManageService accepts a user-controlled URL parameter without proper validation, allowing an attacker to make the server request arbitrary internal or external resources. This can lead to exposure of internal services, cloud metadata, and pivoting to internal infrastructure.

MitigationImplement strict URL validation with allowlist filtering for permitted domains/IPs, disable requests to internal networks (127.0.0.1, 169.254.169.254, private ranges), and add authentication requirements for the affected API endpoint.

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed Dify version
    Check the version file, Docker image tag, or API endpoint /info. Common locations: docker-compose.yml, .env file (DIFFYCATION_VERSION), or the internal API response from the running service.
    Affected if The version is 0.6.9 or lower (any version up to and including 0.6.9).
  2. Locate the ApiToolManageService component
    Search the codebase or container for the file containing ApiToolManageService class, specifically the get_api_tool_provider_remote_schema method. This is typically in the backend API service code under the tools or provider modules.
    Affected if The service file exists and contains the vulnerable get_api_tool_provider_remote_schema function.
  3. Verify tool provider API endpoints are exposed
    Test access to the tool provider management endpoints (typically /console/api/tool-provider/remote-schema or similar paths under /api/v1/tools or /console/api). Attempt a request with an arbitrary URL parameter to see if the endpoint accepts it.
    Affected if The endpoint is accessible without authentication or with low-privilege access and accepts a user-supplied URL parameter.
  4. Check network egress configuration
    Review the application's network configuration to determine if outbound requests to internal addresses (127.0.0.1, 169.254.169.254, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16) are blocked or allowed.
    Affected if The application can initiate outbound HTTP/HTTPS requests to internal network addresses or cloud metadata endpoints.

You are affected if you are running Dify version 0.6.9 or lower AND the ApiToolManageService endpoint that exposes get_api_tool_provider_remote_schema is accessible without proper URL validation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict URL validation with allowlist filtering for permitted domains/IPs, disable requests to internal networks (127.0.0.1, 169.254.169.254, private ranges), and add authentication requirements for the affected API endpoint.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
18.0 hours of engineering $3,200
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6617 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-6617 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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