What is CVE-2021-22175?

CVE-2021-22175 is GitLab Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Vulnerability. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as SSRF mapped to CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Yes: CISA KEV signal present. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

Is there a public exploit?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2021-22175. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, cloud metadata access logs, egress proxy logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2021-22175 using CVSS 9.8, EPSS 53%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

CISA KEVcriticalSSRF

CVE-2021-22175

GitLab Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Vulnerability

Q: Is it in CISA KEV?

Yes. The supplied enrichment data lists CVE-2021-22175 in CISA KEV with required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

When requests to the internal network for webhooks are enabled, a server-side request forgery vulnerability in GitLab affecting all versions starting from 10.5 was possible to exploit for an unauthenticated attacker even on a GitLab instance where registration is disabled

Published Jun 11, 2021Updated Jun 17, 2026Sources: NVD, GitLab (CNA), CISA, FIRST EPSS

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Confirmed

CISA KEV, listed Feb 18, 2026

EPSS

53%

ahead of 99% of scored CVEs

Affects

GitLab

3 products listed

CVSS base

9.8

critical · 3 sources

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

Active

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade GitLab to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

CISA required action

Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Federal deadline Mar 11, 2026 — passed 167 days ago

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
GitLab	GitLab	>=10.5, <13.6.7	Vulnerable
GitLab	GitLab	>=13.7, <13.7.7	Vulnerable
GitLab	GitLab	>=13.8, <13.8.4	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
6.8	CVSS 3.1	medium	2.2	4	gitlab.com (CNA), GitLab (CNA)
9.8	CVSS 3.1	critical	3.9	5.9	NVD
6.8	CVSS 2.0	medium	8.6	6.4	NVD

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-664 · Server Side Request Forgery

CISA KEV details

CISA lists a CVE here once it has evidence of exploitation against real targets.

CISAThat month →

Listed

Feb 18, 2026

Federal deadline

Mar 11, 2026

passed 167 days ago

Ransomware use

Unknown

CISA records ransomware use only for campaigns it has confirmed, so “Unknown” means unrecorded, not ruled out. The deadline binds US federal agencies; for everyone else it is a date to argue against.

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable GitLab.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPScloud metadata access logsegress proxy logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 9.8 (AV:N)
Jun 17, 2026 · NVD
Added to CISA KEV catalog
Feb 18, 2026 · CISA
2021
Initial · CVE published
Jun 11, 2021 · NVD

References

5 on the record

gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cves/-/blob/master/2021/CVE-2021-22175.json
Vendor Advisory
gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/294178
Exploit, Issue Tracking, Vendor Advisory
hackerone.com/reports/1059596
Permissions Required, Third Party Advisory
www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog?field_cve=CVE-2021-22175
US Government Resource
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-22175
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

GitLabevery CVE for this vendor
February 2026what else CISA listed
SSRFsame class
CWE-918other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2021-22175 is GitLab Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) Vulnerability, a critical vulnerability affecting GitLab from GitLab. The current evidence lists it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Yes: CISA KEV signal present. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2021-22175. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 9.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 53% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.