Skip to content

ZITADEL has potential SSRF via Actions

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 25, 2026 in zitadel/zitadel • Updated Feb 27, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/zitadel/zitadel/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

>= 2.59.0, < 4.11.1
< 1.80.0-v2.20.0.20260225053328-b2532e966621

Patched versions

4.11.1
1.80.0-v2.20.0.20260225053328-b2532e966621

Description

Summary

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.

Impact

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.

Affected Versions

Systems running one of the following versions are affected:

  • 4.x: 4.0.0 through 4.11.0 (including RC version)
  • 3.x: 3.0.0 to 3.4.6 (including RC versions)
  • 2.x: 2.59.0 to 2.71.19

Patches

The vulnerability has been addressed in the latest releases. The patch 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.

4.x: Upgrade to >=4.11.1
3.x: Update to >=v4.11.1 or check out workarounds
2.x: Update to >=v4.11.1 or check out workarounds

Workarounds

The recommended solution is to update Zitadel to a patched version.

If an upgrade is not possible, users can prevent actions from using unintended endpoints by setting network policies or firewall rules in your infrastructure. Note that this is outside of the functionality provided by ZITADEL.

Questions

If there are any questions or comments about this advisory, please send an email to security@zitadel.com

Credits

This vulnerability was found by zentrust partners GmbH during a scheduled penetration test. Thank you to the analysts Martin Tschirsich, Joud Zakharia, Christopher Baumann.
The full report will be made public after the complete review.

References

@livio-a livio-a published to zitadel/zitadel Feb 25, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 26, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 27, 2026
Reviewed Feb 27, 2026
Last updated Feb 27, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required High
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
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

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(10th percentile)

Weaknesses

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-27945

GHSA ID

GHSA-7777-fhq9-592v

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.