What is CVE-2026-86771?

CVE-2026-86771 is Snipe-IT before 8.7.0 Server-Side Request Forgery via employee_num. 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-2026-86771. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-86771 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-2026-86771. 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-2026-86771 using CVSS 7.6, 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.

highSSRF

CVE-2026-86771

CVE-2026-86771 — Snipe-IT before 8.7.0 Server-Side Request Forgery via employee_num

Snipe-IT versions before 8.7.0 fail to HTML-escape the employee_num field in the acceptance PDF generator, allowing attackers with users.edit permission to inject img tags into TCPDF's writeHTML() function. Attackers can craft a malicious employee_num value containing an img tag with an arbitrary HTTP(S) URL to trigger server-side requests to internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or external targets when a victim signs an asset acceptance.

Published Sep 9, 2026Updated Sep 9, 2026Sources: NVD, grokability (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, 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

grokability

2 products listed

CVSS base

7.6

high · 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

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade snipe-it to a fixed release (8.7.0). 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
grokability	snipe-it	8.6.3 to < 8.7.0	Vulnerable
grokability	snipe-it	8.7.0	Patched

Attack characteristics

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

Availability

Low

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

None

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

Required

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
7.6	CVSS 3.1	high	2.3	4.7	VulnCheck (CNA), grokability (CNA), GHSA
8.3	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	grokability (CNA)

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

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

Detection

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

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable snipe-it.

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 7.6 (AV:N)
Sep 9, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 9, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-vf76-xm6x-r4hv published (high)
Sep 9, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 9, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

4 on the record

github.com/grokability/snipe-it/security/advisories/GHSA-73xg-j94v-gjcf
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/snipe-it-before-8.7.0-server-side-request-forgery-via-employee-num
Vendor Advisory, Mitre
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-86771
NVD
github.com/advisories/GHSA-vf76-xm6x-r4hv
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

grokabilityevery 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-2026-86771 is Snipe-IT before 8.7.0 Server-Side Request Forgery via employee_num, a high vulnerability affecting snipe-it from grokability. 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-2026-86771. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-86771. 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 7.6 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.