CVE-2026-33340
CVE-2026-33340 — LoLLMs WEBUI has unauthenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in /api/proxy endpoint
LoLLMs WEBUI provides the Web user interface for Lord of Large Language and Multi modal Systems. A critical Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability has been identified in all known existing versions of `lollms-webui`. The `@router.post("/api/proxy")` endpoint allows unauthenticated attackers to force the server into making arbitrary GET requests. This can be exploited to access internal services, scan local networks, or exfiltrate sensitive cloud metadata (e.g., AWS/GCP IAM tokens). As of time of publication, no known patched versions are available.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M
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
22%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
9.1
CRITICAL
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
PoC
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 | CVSS 3.1 | CRITICAL | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-306
- CWE-918
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Indexed by
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 /api/proxy, /GCP.
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
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.