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

CVE-2026-7084

MEDIUM · 6.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-27
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 found in HBAI-Ltd Toonflow-app up to 1.1.1. This affects the function fetch of the file src/routes/setting/vendorConfig/getCodeByLink.ts of the component getCodeByLink Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument Link results in server-side request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made public and could be used. There is ongoing doubt regarding the real existence of this vulnerability. The vendor explains in a reply to the issue report, that "[t]he /getCodeByLink interface is used to obtain TS code and run it locally. It is inherently a high-risk interface, and users must clearly understand the risks before requesting to use it."

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 the getCodeByLink endpoint (src/routes/setting/vendorConfig/getCodeByLink.ts). The fetch function accepts a user-controllable Link parameter that can be manipulated to make the server request arbitrary URLs, potentially accessing internal services or sensitive resources.

MitigationImplement strict URL allowlist validation for the Link parameter, restrict network access to trusted domains only, require authentication for the endpoint, and consider disabling or deprecating the interface if the functionality is not essential given its inherent high-risk nature.

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. Locate the vulnerable endpoint file
    Search the codebase for the file 'getCodeByLink.ts' in the path 'src/routes/setting/vendorConfig/'
    Affected if The file exists in the codebase and contains a fetch or similar HTTP request function that uses a Link parameter from user input
  2. Identify if the endpoint is routed
    Search for references to getCodeByLink in router or route configuration files, or check if the file is imported in the main application entry point
    Affected if The endpoint is imported and registered in the application's routing configuration, making it accessible via HTTP
  3. Verify the Link parameter is user-controllable
    Examine the getCodeByLink.ts file and look for how the Link parameter is obtained (e.g., from req.query, req.params, req.body) and passed directly to a fetch or HTTP request function
    Affected if The code retrieves Link from user input (query string, URL parameter, or request body) without sanitization and passes it to fetch without validation
  4. Confirm network accessibility of the endpoint
    Attempt to access the endpoint path (typically /setting/vendorConfig/getCodeByLink or similar) via HTTP request, checking if authentication is required
    Affected if The endpoint responds without requiring authentication or if authentication can be bypassed, allowing external access to the SSRF-prone functionality
  5. Check for URL validation logic
    Inspect the code around the fetch call to see if there is any URL allowlist, hostname validation, or domain restriction logic before the request is made
    Affected if No URL validation, allowlist, or domain restriction is implemented before the fetch call executes with the user-provided Link parameter

You are affected if the getCodeByLink endpoint exists in your codebase, is exposed via routing, and the Link parameter is passed directly to a fetch call without strict URL validation or authentication requirements.

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 allowlist validation for the Link parameter, restrict network access to trusted domains only, require authentication for the endpoint, and consider disabling or deprecating the interface if the functionality is not essential given its inherent high-risk nature.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
19.0 hours of engineering $3,380
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7084 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-7084 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