CVE-2026-6625
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 security vulnerability has been detected in moxi624 Mogu Blog v2 up to 5.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function LocalFileServiceImpl.uploadPictureByUrl of the file mogu_picture/src/main/java/com/moxi/mogublog/picture/service/impl/LocalFileServiceImpl.java of the component Picture Storage Service. The manipulation leads to server-side request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly 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 confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Mogu Blog v2's Picture Storage Service. The uploadPictureByUrl function in LocalFileServiceImpl.java accepts user-supplied URLs without proper validation, allowing attackers to make the server request arbitrary internal or external URLs.
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 Mogu Blog v2 installationSearch for files named LocalFileServiceImpl.java or check for the Mogu Blog v2 application directory structure. Look for evidence of the Picture Storage Service component.Affected if LocalFileServiceImpl.java exists in the application codebase
-
Locate the uploadPictureByUrl functionExamine LocalFileServiceImpl.java and locate the uploadPictureByUrl method. Review the code for URL validation logic.Affected if The function exists and lacks proper URL validation (no allowlist, no internal IP check)
-
Determine Picture Storage Service accessibilityCheck if the Picture Storage Service API endpoint for uploadPictureByUrl is exposed and accessible to users. Review application routing configuration.Affected if The uploadPictureByUrl endpoint is accessible without authentication or with user-level access
-
Verify URL validation absenceReview the uploadPictureByUrl function code for validation of URL schemes, host validation, or IP range filtering.Affected if No validation exists for URL schemes (allowing http://), internal IP addresses, or restricted hosts
-
Test SSRF behaviorIf authorized, send a request to the uploadPictureByUrl endpoint with a controlled URL (such as an internal service or localhost) and observe if the server attempts to fetch it.Affected if The server makes outbound requests to arbitrary URLs provided in the input
A user is affected if Mogu Blog v2 is running with the Picture Storage Service enabled and the uploadPictureByUrl function lacks proper URL validation, allowing arbitrary URL fetching.
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 and allowlisting in the uploadPictureByUrl function. Restrict URL schemes to safe protocols (https only), validate against internal IP ranges, and consider disabling the function until an official patch is released.
- 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-2026-6625 — 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-2026-6625 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