CVE-2026-27945 | ZITADEL has potential SSRF via Actions

ZITADEL is an open source identity management platform. Zitadel Action V2 (introduced as early preview in 2.59.0, beta in 3.0.0 and GA in 4.0.0) is a webhook based approach to allow developers act on API request to Zitadel and customize flows such the issue of a token. Zitadel's Action target URLs can point to local hosts, potentially allowing adversaries to gather internal network information and connect to internal services. When the URL points to a local host / IP address, an adversary might gather information about the internal network structure, the services exposed on internal hosts etc. This is sometimes called a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). Zitadel Actions expect responses according to specific schemas, which reduces the threat vector. The patch in version 4.11.1 resolves the issue by checking the target URL against a denylist. By default localhost, resp. loopback IPs are denied. Note that this fix was only released on v4.x. Due to the stage (preview / beta) in which the functionality was in v2.x and v3.x, the changes that have been applied to it since then and the severity, respectively the actual thread vector, a backport to the corresponding versions was not feasible. Please check the workaround section for alternative solutions if an upgrade to v4.x is not possible. If an upgrade is not possible, prevent actions from using unintended endpoints by setting network policies or firewall rules in one's own infrastructure. Note that this is outside of the functionality provided by Zitadel.

Published: 2026-02-26 Last update: 2026-03-05 Assigner: [email protected] Source: [email protected]
NVD Status：Analyzed，CVE State: published
View at NVD, CVE.org, EUVD

CVE-2026-27945 is rated Low Risk (11.7/100): CVSS Low severity, with low exploitation likelihood (EPSS 0.03%). Low composite risk—no urgent action required; patch on your normal maintenance cycle and revisit priority if CVSS or EPSS increases.

Risk is dynamic; we continuously reassess and refresh what is shown on this page as upstream context changes.

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2026-27945

EPSS lead: Daily EPSS estimates relative likelihood of exploitation; percentile ranks this CVE among scored vulnerabilities (higher = more severe relative rank).

# Date Old EPSS score New EPSS score Delta (New - Old)
1 2026-02-26 — 0.03% —

Full EPSS history (1 record total)

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2026-27945

CVSS metrics for this CVE.

Base score Version Severity Vector Exploitability Impact Score source
2.1 4.0 LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Exploitation conditions are straightforward and stable.
Attack requirements (AT:P)
Additional preconditions must be present for exploitation.
Privileges required (PR:H)
High privileges are required.
User interaction (UI:N)
No user interaction is required.
Vulnerable system confidentiality impact (VC:L)
Limited confidentiality impact on the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system integrity impact (VI:L)
Limited integrity impact on the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability impact (VA:N)
No availability impact on the vulnerable system.
Subsequent system confidentiality impact (SC:N)
No confidentiality impact on subsequent systems.
Subsequent system integrity impact (SI:N)
No integrity impact on subsequent systems.
Subsequent system availability impact (SA:N)
No availability impact on subsequent systems.
Exploit maturity (threat) (E:X)
Not defined: no reliable threat intelligence; scoring assumes the worst case (equivalent to Attacked).
Confidentiality requirement (CR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Integrity requirement (IR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Availability requirement (AR:X)
Not defined: insufficient information; scoring treats this like High (worst case).
Modified attack vector (MAV:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Vector (AV).
Modified attack complexity (MAC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Complexity (AC).
Modified attack requirements (MAT:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Attack Requirements (AT).
Modified privileges required (MPR:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base Privileges Required (PR).
Modified user interaction (MUI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base User Interaction (UI).
Modified vulnerable system confidentiality impact (MVC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VC metric.
Modified vulnerable system integrity impact (MVI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VI metric.
Modified vulnerable system availability impact (MVA:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base VA metric.
Modified subsequent system confidentiality impact (MSC:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SC metric.
Modified subsequent system integrity impact (MSI:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SI metric.
Modified subsequent system availability impact (MSA:X)
Not defined: scoring uses the Base SA metric.
Safety (supplemental) (S:X)
Not evaluated.
Automatable (supplemental) (AU:X)
Not evaluated.
Recovery (supplemental) (R:X)
Not evaluated.
Value density (supplemental) (V:X)
Not evaluated.
Vulnerability response effort (supplemental) (RE:X)
Not evaluated.
Provider urgency (supplemental) (U:X)
Not evaluated.
 — — [email protected]
6.5 3.1 MEDIUM
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:L)
Some sensitive info could get out, but not a total data dump.
Integrity (I:L)
Attackers could change some data, but it’s limited—not everything goes.
Availability (A:N)
Service keeps running; no real outage angle.
 3.9 2.5 [email protected]

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2026-27945

GitHub Security Advisory for CVE-2026-27945

GHSA-7777-fhq9-592v · Severity: low · Ecosystem: go — ZITADEL has potential SSRF via Actions

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2026-27945

Vendor Product Version Raw CPE
zitadel zitadel >= 2.59.0, <= 3.4.6 cpe:2.3:a:zitadel:zitadel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
zitadel zitadel >= 4.0.0, < 4.11.1 cpe:2.3:a:zitadel:zitadel:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References for CVE-2026-27945

cvelogic Threat Intelligence