Skip to content

CVE-2026-9312

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF): Is CVE-2026-9312 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
8.2 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
7%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

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 →
Affected:Github

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

A server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability was identified in GitHub Enterprise Server that allowed an unauthenticated attacker to send crafted requests to internal services by exploiting insufficient input validation in an upload endpoint. By injecting path traversal content into request parameters, an attacker could bypass the intended request flow and redirect internal API calls, potentially accessing internal services and exposing sensitive credentials. This vulnerability affected all versions of GitHub Enterprise Server prior to 3.22 and was fixed in versions 3.17.17, 3.18.11, 3.19.8, 3.20.4, and 3.21.2. This vulnerability was reported via the GitHub Bug Bounty program.

References

NVD MITRE CVE.org

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9312
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9312/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9312)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9312"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9312/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9312"></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. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile.

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).