What is CVE-2026-100696?

CVE-2026-100696 is Adminer before 6.0.2 Unauthenticated SSRF via Elasticsearch Driver. 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?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-100696. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-100696 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. 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-2026-100696 using CVSS 5.8, EPSS 0%, 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. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. 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.

mediumSSRFpublic exploit

CVE-2026-100696

CVE-2026-100696 — Adminer before 6.0.2 Unauthenticated SSRF via Elasticsearch Driver

Adminer 4.16.0 through 6.0.1 contain a pre-authentication Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the optional Elasticsearch driver (plugins/drivers/elastic.php), fixed in 6.0.2. Because adminer/include/auth.inc.php invokes Driver::connect() before the login result is validated, an unauthenticated attacker who submits crafted auth[server], auth[username], and auth[password] parameters can cause the Adminer server to issue an HTTP GET request (via get_url()/file_get_contents()) to an arbitrary reachable host and port. The driver validates only general server syntax and does not block loopback, private, link-local, or other reserved addresses; if no port is given it appends the default 9200, and Adminer's generic port check rejects ports below 1024. Selected JSON error fields from non-2xx Elasticsearch-style responses, as well as connection failures, are rendered on the login page, providing a port-scanning oracle and enabling internal network reconnaissance and service fingerprinting. Exploitation requires that the optional Elasticsearch driver be explicitly deployed (e.g., via the adminer/elastic.php template or an adminer_object() configuration; it is not loaded in a default build) and that PHP allow_url_fopen be enabled.

Published Sep 26, 2026Updated Sep 26, 2026Sources: NVD, vrana (CNA), GitHub

Triage

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

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

Not scored

FIRST has not published a score

Affects

vrana

2 products listed

CVSS base

5.8

medium · 2 sources

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade adminer to a fixed release (6.0.2). Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

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.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
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
vrana	adminer	0 to < 6.0.2	Vulnerable
vrana	adminer	6.0.2	Patched

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

None

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

None

Scope

Changed

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
5.8	CVSS 3.1	medium	3.9	1.4	NVD, vrana (CNA)
6.9	CVSS 4.0	medium	—	—	vrana (CNA)

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

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

Detection

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

Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /drivers/elastic.php), /include/auth.inc.php, /file_get_contents()), /elastic.php.
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable adminer.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.

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 5.8 (AV:N)
Sep 26, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 26, 2026 · NVD

References

2 on the record

github.com/vrana/adminer/security/advisories/GHSA-q8h3-4cx4-prgm
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/adminer-before-6.0.2-unauthenticated-ssrf-via-elasticsearch-driver
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

vranaevery CVE for this vendor
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-2026-100696 is Adminer before 6.0.2 Unauthenticated SSRF via Elasticsearch Driver, a medium vulnerability affecting adminer from vrana. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-100696. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. 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 5.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% 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.