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-2026-77522. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-77522 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-2026-77522. 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-2026-77522 using CVSS 4.3, 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.

mediumSSRF

CVE-2026-77522

CVE-2026-77522 — MaxKB: Authenticated full-read SSRF via the knowledge web-document import/sync crawler (Fork.fork requests.get, no internal-IP guard, non-blind)

Q: What is CVE-2026-77522?

CVE-2026-77522 is MaxKB: Authenticated full-read SSRF via the knowledge web-document import/sync crawler (Fork.fork requests.get, no internal-IP guard, non-blind). The supplied enrichment data classifies it as SSRF mapped to CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).

MaxKB is an open-source AI assistant for enterprise. In version 2.10.3-lts and earlier, the knowledge web-document import and synchronization crawler passes an authenticated workspace user's URL to Fork.fork, which calls requests.get with verify=False and without restricting schemes, loopback, link-local, private, or reserved addresses. The response body is converted into imported document content, allowing a low-privileged user to read cloud metadata or internal HTTP services through the MaxKB server. No fixed version is available as of this review.

Published Sep 21, 2026Updated Sep 21, 2026Sources: NVD, 1Panel-dev (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

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

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

1Panel-dev

MaxKB

CVSS base

4.3

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade MaxKB 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
1Panel-dev	MaxKB	<= 2.10.3-lts	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

None

Confidentiality

None

Integrity

Low

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

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
4.3	CVSS 3.1	medium	2.8	1.4	GitHub (CNA), 1Panel-dev (CNA)

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

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

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

Read Application Data
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands::

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

Social mentions

Posts naming this CVE. Attention, not evidence of exploitation — it spikes on disclosure and decays whether or not anything is exploited.

Found an authenticated full-read SSRF in https://t.co/D8QSgCgU12 CVE-2026-77522: the web-document crawler fetched any user URL with no internal-IP guard and returned the body. Read cloud metadata creds from a low-priv account. #cve #research #appsec https://t.co/0NVgzaFpPo
@CyberKareem· Sep 2, 2026

Detection

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

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable MaxKB.

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 4.3 (AV:N)
Sep 21, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 21, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 21, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

1×Tweets · 1 time tweeted.Sep 3, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
1×SVRS is calculatedSep 3, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

1 on the record

github.com/1Panel-dev/MaxKB/security/advisories/GHSA-ffxw-frpx-8rww
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre

Elsewhere on this site

1Panel-devevery 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-2026-77522 is MaxKB: Authenticated full-read SSRF via the knowledge web-document import/sync crawler (Fork.fork requests.get, no internal-IP guard, non-blind), a medium vulnerability affecting MaxKB from 1Panel-dev. 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-2026-77522. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-77522. 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 4.3 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.