Skip to content

CVE-2026-44583

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF): Is CVE-2026-44583 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

☆ Watch

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.3 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.4%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

Paymenter is a free and open-source webshop solution for management of hosting services. In versions prior to 1.5.0, the PayPal webhook endpoint /extensions/paypal/webhook processes the PAYPAL-CERT-URL HTTP header without validation, allowing attackers to control server-side HTTP request destinations. This value is passed directly into a server-side HTTP request via file_get_contents, allowing attackers to control the destination of the request. No allowlist, validation, or signature verification is applied to the header before usage. As a result, the application can be coerced into performing HTTP requests to attacker-controlled or internal network destinations. This vulnerability allows remote unauthenticated attackers to induce server-side HTTP GET requests to arbitrary external or internal endpoints. Depending on network configuration, this may lead to: blind SSRF to external attacker-controlled systems, and potential access to internal network services No direct response data is returned to the attacker (blind SSRF), but the issue may still enable sensitive network probing or data exfiltration via side channels. This issue has been fixed in version 1.5.0.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-44583
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44583/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44583)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44583"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-44583/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-44583"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Related CVEs

Same weakness: CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).