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

CVE-2026-9557

MEDIUM · 6.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-29
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
70/100
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 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in Mautic's Focus component. Due to insufficient validation of user-supplied URLs, an authenticated user can trigger outbound HTTP requests from the hosting server, enabling internal network reconnaissance or forcing requests to arbitrary internal or external destinations.

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 confidence

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Mautic's Focus component allows authenticated users to supply arbitrary URLs that the hosting server will request, enabling internal network reconnaissance and potential attacks against internal services or external targets.

MitigationImplement strict URL validation with domain/IP allowlisting for the Focus component to restrict outbound requests to approved targets only, and consider disabling or limiting the outbound request feature for lower-privileged users.

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
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/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 checks

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

  1. Identify Mautic installation version
    Check the version file in your Mautic installation (usually in app/appConstants.php or a version.json file in the root directory)
    Affected if The installed version falls within the affected version range for this CVE (check Mautic security advisories for the specific vulnerable versions)
  2. Verify Focus component is enabled
    Log into Mautic admin panel and navigate to the Focus section (usually found under Channels or as a separate menu item), or check the database table for active focus items
    Affected if The Focus component is installed and accessible to authenticated users
  3. Inspect Focus widget/element configuration
    In Mautic admin, create or edit a Focus item and examine the available options for URL fields or webhooks; check if there are any fields accepting user-supplied URLs (such as redirect URLs, tracking URLs, or external resource URLs)
    Affected if There are configuration options that accept arbitrary URLs without visible validation
  4. Test URL validation behavior (if authorized)
    Using an authenticated test account, attempt to supply an internal URL (such as http://localhost or http://127.0.0.1) in the Focus component URL fields to see if the application accepts and processes it
    Affected if The application accepts internal or arbitrary external URLs without rejecting them or requiring explicit allowlisting
  5. Check for existing URL validation in Mautic configuration
    Examine Mautic configuration files (parameters.yml or app/config/local.php) for any URL validation or allowlist settings related to the Focus component
    Affected if No URL validation or allowlisting is configured for the Focus component

Your environment is affected if you are running a vulnerable Mautic version with the Focus component enabled and accessible to authenticated users without proper URL validation in place.

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 domain/IP allowlisting for the Focus component to restrict outbound requests to approved targets only, and consider disabling or limiting the outbound request feature for lower-privileged users.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-9557 — 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-2026-9557 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