CAPEC-664

How the attack unfolds

1. Explore

   The attacker looks for a way in.

   1. [Find target application] Find target web application that accepts a user input and retrieves data from the server

2. Experiment

   They probe what they found.

   2. [Examine existing application requests] Examine HTTP/GET requests to view the URL query format. Adversaries test to see if this type of attack is possible through weaknesses in an application's protection to Server Side Request Forgery

      3 techniques

      • Attempt manipulating the URL to retrieve an error response/code from the server to determine if URL/request validation is done.
      • Use a list of XSS probe strings to specify as parameters to known URLs. If possible, use probe strings with unique identifiers.
      • Create a GET request with a common server file path such as /etc/passwd as a parameter and examine output.

3. Exploit

   They carry out the attack.

   3. [Malicious request] Adversary crafts a malicious URL request that assumes the privilege level of the server to query internal or external network services and sends the request to the application

Prerequisites

• Server must be running a web application that processes HTTP requests.

Skills required

• Medium skill

  The adversary will have to detect the vulnerability through an intermediary service or specify maliciously crafted URLs and analyze the server response.

• High skill

  The adversary will be required to access internal resources, extract information, or leverage the services running on the server to perform unauthorized actions such as traversing the local network or routing a reflected TCP DDoS through them.

Resources required

• [None] No specialized resources are required to execute this type of attack.

Consequences

Mitigations

• Handling incoming requests securely is the first line of action to mitigate this vulnerability. This can be done through URL validation.

• Further down the process flow, examining the response and verifying that it is as expected before sending would be another way to secure the server.

• Allowlist the DNS name or IP address of every service the web application is required to access is another effective security measure. This ensures the server cannot make external requests to arbitrary services.

• Requiring authentication for local services adds another layer of security between the adversary and internal services running on the server. By enforcing local authentication, an adversary will not gain access to all internal services only with access to the server.

• Enforce the usage of relevant URL schemas. By limiting requests be made only through HTTP or HTTPS, for example, attacks made through insecure schemas such as file://, ftp://, etc. can be prevented.

Weaknesses it exploits

• CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
• CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery

Recent CVEs with these weaknesses

1. 8.7CVE-2026-636512026-11-10

   LiveDocs is a primary-source-first documentation for AI agents. Prior to version 0.7.0, fetch_docs and introspect (kinds openapi/graphql, and resolve_source's docs_url) pass a client-supplied URL straight to URLSession with no scheme or ho…

2. 9.6CVE-2026-1081862026-11-10

   Improper Input Validation in Zoom Workplace for Windows may allow an unauthenticated user to conduct an escalation of privilege via network access.

3. 4.9CVE-2026-1054272026-11-10

   Improper input validation in Ivanti EPMM before version 12.10.0.1, 12.9.0.3, and 12.8.0.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to permanently disable all Apache HTTPS services resulting in denial of service.

4. 6.7CVE-2026-1054262026-11-10

   Improper input validation in Ivanti EPMM before version 12.10.0.1, 12.9.0.3, and 12.8.0.5 allows a remote authenticated attacker with admin privileges to set arbitrary Linux kernel parameters as root.

5. 4.3CVE-2026-1231782026-11-10

   An insufficient input validation vulnerability in the listed NETGEAR Orbi Models router allows an authenticated administrator connected to the local network to execute unauthorized commands and modify the router’s software and functionalit…

6. 6.3CVE-2026-1258712026-11-10

   The sourcecache expansion module in MISP Modules (misp-modules) contains a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability. When a user with permission to create or modify attributes of type 'link' or 'url' submits an attribute value, the…

7. 5.3CVE-2026-1009622026-11-10

   NVIDIA NeMo Export-Deploy for all platforms contains a vulnerability in multimodal deployment where an attacker could cause a server-side request forgery. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might cause information disclosure.

8. 5.5CVE-2026-1257032026-11-10

   A flaw was found in the GStreamer gst-plugins-bad MXF plugin. Insufficient bounds checks when parsing crafted VANC data can cause an out-of-bounds read in the demuxer, while an incorrect buffer size calculation when muxing multiple ancilla…

The newest records naming one of them. Each weakness's page lists them all.

Related attack patterns

Part of

• CAPEC-115 Authentication Bypass

Examples

MITRE's words, unchanged: CAPEC-664 at MITRE. CAPEC is Copyright © 2007–2026, The MITRE Corporation, used under the CAPEC terms of use: “The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC™) for research, development, and commercial purposes. Any copy you make for such purposes is authorized provided that you reproduce MITRE’s copyright designation and this license in any such copy.” CAPEC and the CAPEC logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Credits. All attack patterns.