FKIE_CVE-2026-31945
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-03-27 20:16 - Updated: 2026-03-30 20:35
Severity ?
Summary
LibreChat is a ChatGPT clone with additional features. Versions 0.8.2-rc2 through 0.8.2 are vulnerable to a server-side request forgery (SSRF) attack when using agent actions or MCP. Although a previous SSRF vulnerability (https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat/security/advisories/GHSA-rgjq-4q58-m3q8) was reported and patched, the fix only introduced hostname validation. It does not verify whether DNS resolution results in a private IP address. As a result, an attacker can still bypass the protection and gain access to internal resources, such as an internal RAG API or cloud instance metadata endpoints. Version 0.8.3-rc1 contains a patch.
References
| URL | Tags | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| security-advisories@github.com | https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat/security/advisories/GHSA-f92m-jpv7-55p2 | Exploit, Vendor Advisory, Mitigation | |
| 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0 | https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat/security/advisories/GHSA-f92m-jpv7-55p2 | Exploit, Vendor Advisory, Mitigation |
{
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:librechat:librechat:0.8.2:-:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "8D828ED6-3F44-4DD1-B29F-62D8977AF33A",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:librechat:librechat:0.8.2:rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "21865C8B-C628-4275-A552-89F64EF22918",
"vulnerable": true
},
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:librechat:librechat:0.8.2:rc3:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "47A1B487-1A7B-4E06-8503-56E7D349FAA2",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "LibreChat is a ChatGPT clone with additional features. Versions 0.8.2-rc2 through 0.8.2 are vulnerable to a server-side request forgery (SSRF) attack when using agent actions or MCP. Although a previous SSRF vulnerability (https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat/security/advisories/GHSA-rgjq-4q58-m3q8) was reported and patched, the fix only introduced hostname validation. It does not verify whether DNS resolution results in a private IP address. As a result, an attacker can still bypass the protection and gain access to internal resources, such as an internal RAG API or cloud instance metadata endpoints. Version 0.8.3-rc1 contains a patch."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-31945",
"lastModified": "2026-03-30T20:35:03.990",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 7.7,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "CHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 3.1,
"impactScore": 4.0,
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
},
"published": "2026-03-27T20:16:30.060",
"references": [
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"tags": [
"Exploit",
"Vendor Advisory",
"Mitigation"
],
"url": "https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat/security/advisories/GHSA-f92m-jpv7-55p2"
},
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"tags": [
"Exploit",
"Vendor Advisory",
"Mitigation"
],
"url": "https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat/security/advisories/GHSA-f92m-jpv7-55p2"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-918"
}
],
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Loading…
Loading…