CVE-2026-100863 — Heym before 0.0.91 SSRF via image fetching and IPv6 validation
Heym versions 0.0.90 and earlier contain two server-side request forgery (SSRF) egress gaps, both remediated in app/services/ssrf_guard.py in 0.0.91. First, the LLM image-edit input loader (_load_image_bytes) fetched caller-controlled HTTP/HTTPS URLs with a bare httpx.get, applying only a scheme check and bypassing the egress-pinning HTTP client; because the workflow DSL supports "imageInput": "$userInput.body.imageUrl", a webhook or API caller can choose the fetch target when a workflow author uses that expression, allowing requests to loopback, RFC1918, and cloud metadata endpoints. Second, _is_public_address unwrapped only IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, so IPv6 transition forms — the NAT64 well-known prefix 64:ff9b::/96, deprecated IPv4-compatible ::x.x.x.x addresses, and 6to4 (2002::/16, classified as globally routable by Python 3.11.0 through 3.11.9) — could carry loopback, RFC1918, link-local, or cloud-metadata IPv4 destinations past both the initial URL validation and the dial-time IP pin. Version 0.0.91 routes the image loader through guard_http_url and the guarded client, evaluates NAT64 and IPv4-compatible addresses by their embedded IPv4 address, and refuses 64:ff9b:1::/48, 6to4, and Teredo (2001::/32) outright.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- Technical severity (medium)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Heymrun Heym).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (ssrf), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.3 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 5.3 | CVSS 4.0 | Medium | — | — | VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| 5.0 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 3.1 | 1.4 | disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 5.0 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: disclosure@vulncheck.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Monitor outbound requests from the server to internal IPs and cloud metadata endpoints.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · heymrun/heym
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 5.0
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-110873 Heym 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 Credential Theft via error_workflow_id Field 1d
- High CVE-2026-55376 heym Python Tool Sandbox Escape 2d
- Medium CVE-2026-109362 Heym v0.0.5 before v0.0.113 Broken Access Control via Workflow Execution Tokens 3d
- Medium CVE-2026-105396 Heym before v0.0.112 HITL Review Token Leak via Spoofable Origin Header 10d
- Medium CVE-2026-101050 Heym before 0.0.53 Authentication Bypass via Telegram Webhook 18d
- Medium CVE-2026-101049 Heym before 0.0.53 Slack Webhook Signature Verification Bypass 18d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No FIRST EPSS score.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-100863 is "Heym before 0.0.91 SSRF via image fetching and IPv6 validation", rated Medium. It affects Heym (Heymrun); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 5.0 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.