SSRF via image import from URL allows internal network probing by authenticated users (CVE-2026-28385)
Published Last modified Sources: CVE.org, Hersteller
What is affected, what to do
An exploit is publicly available. Update Canonical LXD to version 6.10.
- Affected
- Canonical LXD
lt 6.0..6.10
- Canonical LXD
- Fixed in
- Canonical LXD
6.10
- Canonical LXD
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
5.0
Priority
XIEM Effective CVSS: highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: NVD, CVSS v3
5.0
CVSS v3
Severity Medium on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: CVE.org, Hersteller
0.3 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 20.3
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Medium
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 47.38 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- PoC (publicly reported)
XIEM Effective CVSS
XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.
Read in glossary- 5.0 Methodology
CVSS v3
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 5.0
EPSS score
The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.
Read in glossary- 0.3 %
- Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile
The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.
Read in glossary- 20.3
- Elevated — this CVE ranks above at least 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: none known · not automatable · Technical impact: partial
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 26 June 2026
CWE
CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.
Read in glossary- CWE-918
Detection rules
No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- Handle the vulnerability in regular vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
Summary
The LXD image import-from-URL endpoint (POST /1.0/images with source.type=url) makes server-side HTTP requests to an attacker-supplied URL without any private-IP or loopback blocking. An authenticated user with the can_create_images entitlement can force the LXD daemon to connect to internal network addresses (127.0.0.1, RFC1918 ranges, cloud metadata endpoints), enabling port scanning via error-based inference and interaction with internal HTTP services from the daemon's privileged network position.
Severity
- Attack Vector: Network — LXD API is network-accessible.
- Attack Complexity: Low — Single crafted API request with no special conditions.
- Privileges Required: Low — Requires
can_create_imagesentitlement, a non-admin permission commonly delegated to regular users. - User Interaction: None.
- Scope: Changed — The attacker leverages LXD's privileged network position to probe and interact with internal services that are outside the attacker's direct network access and outside the scope of LXD's image management authorization.
- Confidentiality Impact: Low — Error messages reveal internal port states (open/closed/filtered) and service availability. Response bodies from internal services are NOT returned to the attacker (hash validation blocks content exfiltration).
- Integrity Impact: None — No demonstrated ability to modify data on internal services.
- Availability Impact: None — No meaningful resource exhaustion or denial of service.
Affected Component
lxd/images.go—imgPostURLInfo(lines 668–755) — Makes HEAD request to user-supplied URL without any SSRF protections.lxd/util/http.go—HTTPClient(lines 102–147) — Creates HTTP client with no IP blocking or URL validation.shared/network.go—RFC3493Dialer(lines 20–49) — Dials arbitrary hosts including private/loopback ranges.lxd/daemon_images.go—ImageDownload(lines 478–510, "direct" case) — Makes GET request to URL from attacker-controlled response header.
Description
Core vulnerability: no SSRF protections on server-side image fetching
When a user imports an image from a URL, the imgPostURLInfo function makes an HTTP HEAD request directly to the user-supplied URL with zero validation:
// lxd/images.go:668-703
func imgPostURLInfo(ctx context.Context, s *state.State, req api.ImagesPost, ...) (*api.Image, error) {
if req.Source.URL == "" {
return nil, errors.New("Missing URL")
}
myhttp, err := util.HTTPClient("", s.Proxy)
// ...
// Resolve the image URL
head, err := http.NewRequest("HEAD", req.Source.URL, nil)
// No URL validation, no scheme check, no IP range check
// ...
raw, err := myhttp.Do(head) // Makes request to arbitrary destination
The HTTP client is created via util.HTTPClient which uses shared.RFC3493Dialer — a standard dialer with zero private-IP filtering:
// shared/network.go:20-49
func RFC3493Dialer(context context.Context, network string, address string) (net.Conn, error) {
host, port, err := net.SplitHostPort(address)
// ...
addrs, err := net.LookupHost(host)
// ...
for _, a := range addrs {
c, err := net.DialTimeout(network, net.JoinHostPort(a, port), 10*time.Second)
// No check: IsLoopback? IsPrivate? IsLinkLocalUnicast?
// Connects to ANY resolved address including 127.0.0.1, 10.x.x.x, 169.254.169.254
The HTTP client also follows redirects unconditionally:
// lxd/util/http.go:139-144
myhttp.CheckRedirect = func(req *http.Request, via []*http.Request) error {
// Replicate the headers
req.Header = via[len(via)-1].Header
return nil // Always follows redirects — no destination validation
}
No SSRF protections exist anywhere in the codebase
An exhaustive search for private-IP checks (IsLoopback, IsPrivate, IsLinkLocalUnicast), URL allowlists, or SSRF-specific protections found zero results in any HTTP client or outbound request path. The codebase has no SSRF defense infrastructure.
Chained SSRF via LXD-Image-URL response header
After the HEAD request, the LXD-Image-URL response header is used as the target for a second HTTP GET request, creating a chained SSRF:
// lxd/images.go:705-725
hash := raw.Header.Get("LXD-Image-Hash") // Attacker controls this
url := raw.Header.Get("LXD-Image-URL") // Attacker controls this
info, err := ImageDownload(ctx, s, op, &ImageDownloadArgs{
Server: url, // Attacker-controlled URL from response header
Protocol: "direct", // Forces unprotected direct HTTP GET
Alias: hash, // Attacker-controlled hash
// ...
})
In ImageDownload, the "direct" case makes a GET to the attacker-controlled URL:
// lxd/daemon_images.go:478-510
case "direct":
httpClient, err := util.HTTPClient(args.Certificate, s.Proxy)
// ...
req, err := http.NewRequest(http.MethodGet, args.Server, nil) // args.Server = attacker URL
// ...
raw, doneCh, err := cancel.CancelableDownload(canceler, httpClient.Do, req)
This means an attacker who controls the HEAD target can redirect the second GET request to any internal service. The response body is downloaded to disk but hash validation prevents the attacker from reading it:
// lxd/daemon_images.go:541-544
result := hex.EncodeToString(sha256.Sum(nil))
if result != fp {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("Hash mismatch for %q: %s != %s", args.Server, result, fp)
}
Error observability enables port scanning
Errors from the outbound request propagate back to the caller via the operation result:
// lxd/operations/operations.go:612-614
if op.err != nil {
retOp.Err = response.SmartError(op.err).String()
}
The error messages differ based on the target's state:
- Port open:
"Missing LXD-Image-Hash header"(HEAD succeeded, response had no expected headers) - Port closed:
"connection refused"(connection rejected immediately) - Port filtered/host unreachable:
"context deadline exceeded"/"no route to host"(timeout or routing error)
These differences allow systematic port scanning of internal networks from the LXD daemon's network position.
Execution chain
- Attacker sends
POST /1.0/imageswith{"source":{"type":"url","url":"http://127.0.0.1:6379/"}} imagesPosthandler verifiescan_create_imagesentitlement (line 1163)- Background operation calls
imgPostURLInfo(line 1361) imgPostURLInfocreates HTTP client viautil.HTTPClient— no SSRF protections (line 675)- HEAD request to
http://127.0.0.1:6379/— no IP validation (line 700) RFC3493Dialerresolves127.0.0.1and dials it — no private-IP check (line 33)- Error or response propagated back via operation (line 612-614 in operations.go)
- Attacker queries operation result via
GET /1.0/operations/{id}/waitand reads the error message
For chained SSRF:
- Attacker points
source.urlto their own server - Their server responds with
LXD-Image-Hash: <any>andLXD-Image-URL: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ - LXD makes GET to
http://169.254.169.254/...(line 493 in daemon_images.go) - Response body downloaded but hash validation prevents content exfiltration
- Error messages still reveal whether the internal service responded (200 vs error)
Proof of Concept
# Safe PoC: force daemon to connect to loopback port 1 (closed port).
# Error message will confirm server-side request occurred.
SOCK=/var/lib/lxd/unix.socket
# Create the operation
OP=$(curl -s --unix-socket "$SOCK" \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-X POST http://localhost/1.0/images \
-d '{"source":{"type":"url","url":"http://127.0.0.1:1/"}}' \
| sed -n 's/.*"operation":"\([^"]*\)".*/\1/p')
# Wait for result — expect "connection refused" confirming SSRF
curl -s --unix-socket "$SOCK" "http://localhost${OP}/wait"
# Response will contain error with "connection refused"
Source: NVD (NIST), cvelistv5, GitHub Security Advisories
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Canonical | lxd |
|
|
| canonical | lxd |
|
|
| go | github.com/canonical/lxd |
|
|
Vendors and products
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Base
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Entry at MITRE CWE-918
Public exploit references
Publicly reported proof-of-concepts, exploit modules and detection templates for this vulnerability. NEOSEC links to the original sources only and does not provide any exploit code.
| Reference tagged as exploit | github.com (opens in a new tab) | PoC (publicly reported)reported, not verified | — |
References & sources
- github.comSSRF via image import from URL allows internal network probing by authenticated usersVulnerability database, Vendor advisory, Exploit, Vendor advisory, Mitigation
- github.comdoc: update guide to hardening security for LXDPatch, Issue tracking, Issue tracking, Patch
Changes to this CVE
Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).
One NVD translation into another language is hidden.
Embed badge
Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-28385"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-28385.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-28385 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>