CVE Intelligence
High SSRF

CVE-2026-10582 — Hugo 0.91.0 through 0.165.0 Server-Side Request Forgery via security.http.urls Lacking Destination Address Validation

Hugo's security.http.urls allowlist is the only control on outbound fetches made by resources.GetRemote, and it inspects the URL text alone. CheckAllowedHTTPURL in config/security/securityConfig.go applies the configured pattern list and then re-checks a canonicalised form of an integer, hex or octal IPv4 host, but it never resolves the hostname and never inspects the address the HTTP client actually connects to. The client constructed in resources/resource_factories/create/create.go installs no dial-time hook, so no check occurs at connection time either. A hostname that resolves to a loopback, private or cloud-metadata address therefore satisfies the policy, and the response body is embedded in the generated site. An attacker who can supply a URL through content, for example a front-matter field or a CMS field, can make the build fetch an internal endpoint and publish the response in the static output, so the build artifact itself carries the data out.

Published Aug 24, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: VulnCheck

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
  • Technical severity (high)+6

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.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.32%
ahead of 23% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
Gohugoio
Hugo
CVSS base
7.4
High · 2 source(s)

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.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

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.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Gohugoio Hugo).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  5. 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.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Gohugoio Hugo ≥ 0.91.0 and ≤ 0.165.0 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
8.3 CVSS 4.0 High — — disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.3 CVSS 4.0 High — — VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
7.4 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 4.0 disclosure@vulncheck.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
7.4 CVSS 3.1 High — — VulnCheck via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: disclosure@vulncheck.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-918 · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.32%

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.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSegress traffic

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · gohugoio/hugo
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 7.4
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 24, 2026 · VulnCheck

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Gohugoio
every CVE for this vendor
SSRF
same class
CWE-918
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-109596 Hugo from v0.162.0 before v0.167.0 Symlink File Disclosure via Nested Mount Ancestor 3d
  • CVE-2026-109597 Hugo v0.60.0 before v0.167.0 Stored XSS via Table of Contents Heading IDs 3d
  • CVE-2026-109595 Hugo v0.84.0 before v0.167.0 Path Traversal via js.Build ESBuild Resolver 3d
  • CVE-2026-109574 Hugo before v0.167.0 Path Traversal via css.Sass Import Fallback 3d
  • CVE-2026-89258 Hugo before v0.165.0 Symlink Confinement Bypass via resources.Get Sep 11, 2026
  • CVE-2026-89259 Hugo before v0.165.0 Insufficient Permission Restriction via TailwindCSS Sep 11, 2026

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 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-2026-10582 is "Hugo 0.91.0 through 0.165.0 Server-Side Request Forgery via security.http.urls Lacking Destination Address Validation", rated High. It affects Hugo (Gohugoio); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.4 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.32% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. 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.