What is CVE-2026-33990?

CVE-2026-33990 is Docker Model Runner OCI Registry Client Vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). 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-2026-33990. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-33990 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?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-33990. 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-2026-33990 using CVSS 9.1, 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.

criticalSSRF

CVE-2026-33990

CVE-2026-33990 — Docker Model Runner OCI Registry Client Vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Docker Model Runner (DMR) is software used to manage, run, and deploy AI models using Docker. Prior to version 1.1.25, Docker Model Runner contains an SSRF vulnerability in its OCI registry token exchange flow. When pulling a model, Model Runner follows the realm URL from the registry's WWW-Authenticate header without validating the scheme, hostname, or IP range. A malicious OCI registry can set the realm to an internal URL (e.g., http://127.0.0.1:3000/), causing Model Runner running on the host to make arbitrary GET requests to internal services and reflect the full response body back to the caller. Additionally, the token exchange mechanism can relay data from internal services back to the attacker-controlled registry via the Authorization: Bearer header. This issue has been patched in version 1.1.25. For Docker Desktop users, enabling Enhanced Container Isolation (ECI) blocks container access to Model Runner, preventing exploitation. However, if the Docker Model Runner is exposed to localhost over TCP in specific configurations, the vulnerability is still exploitable.

Published Apr 1, 2026Updated Jun 17, 2026Sources: NVD, docker (CNA)

Triage

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

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

docker

model-runner

CVSS base

9.1

critical · 2 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

None

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

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade model-runner to a fixed release. 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
docker	model-runner	< 1.1.25	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

None

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
9.1	CVSS 3.1	critical	3.9	5.2	CNA
6.8	CVSS 4.0	medium	—	—	docker (CNA)

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

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 //127.0.0.1:3000/).
Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable model-runner.

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 9.1 (AV:N)
Jun 17, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Apr 1, 2026 · NVD

References

1 on the record

github.com/docker/model-runner/security/advisories/GHSA-x2f5-332j-9xwq
Mitigation, Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

dockerevery 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-2026-33990 is Docker Model Runner OCI Registry Client Vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), a critical vulnerability affecting model-runner from docker. 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-2026-33990. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-33990. 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 9.1 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.