CVE-2026-88892
CVE-2026-88892 — OpenPanel SSRF via Unguarded Importer File URL Fetch
OpenPanel is an analytics platform. In all versions (no patched release available at time of publication), the data importer fetches a caller-supplied URL with plain fetch instead of the project's existing SSRF guard (apps/api/src/utils/safe-fetch.ts). In packages/importer/src/providers/umami.ts, parseRemoteFile calls fetch() on config.fileUrl, which is validated only by z.string().url(), so values such as http://127.0.0.1:9911/ or http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ are accepted; the shared createFileImportConfig factory gives the plausible provider the same field. An authenticated organization member — including a default 'member' with no project_access rows, for whom the intended access-level check is skipped because getProjectAccess returns boolean true rather than a level object — can therefore make the server connect to any address reachable from it. The resulting HTTP status and status text are persisted as Import.errorMessage and returned by import.get to the same user, providing a scanning oracle for internal hosts, ports and paths; if an internal response parses as Umami CSV, its rows are ingested as events and become readable in the attacker's analytics views.
Published Updated Sources: NVD, Openpanel-dev (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
0%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
5
medium · 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.
Exploitation
PoC
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
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 openpanel 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Openpanel-dev | openpanel | 0 | Vulnerable |
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
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | CVSS 3.1 | medium | 3.1 | 1.4 | VulnCheck (CNA), Openpanel-dev (CNA), GHSA |
| 5.3 | CVSS 4.0 | medium | — | — | Openpanel-dev (CNA) |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/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.
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.
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/src/utils/safe-fetch.ts), /importer/src/providers/umami.ts, //127.0.0.1:9911/, //169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable openpanel.
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 5.0 (AV:N)
Sep 10, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 10, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-vmh2-9r6c-h7q4 published (medium)
Sep 10, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 10, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
4 on the record
- github.com/Openpanel-dev/openpanel/security/advisories/GHSA-cj2r-3x54-88h7
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, Mitre
- www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openpanel-ssrf-via-unguarded-importer-file-url-fetch
Vendor Advisory, Mitre
- nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-88892
NVD
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-vmh2-9r6c-h7q4
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
Elsewhere on this site
- Openpanel-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-2026-88892 is OpenPanel SSRF via Unguarded Importer File URL Fetch, a medium vulnerability affecting openpanel from Openpanel-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-2026-88892. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-88892. 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 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.