High SSRF

CVE-2026-53755 — Crawl4AI: SSRF via proxy settings in the Docker server bypasses the crawl-URL SSRF check

Crawl4AI is an open-source LLM friendly web crawler & scraper. Prior to 0.8.9, the Docker API server applied its SSRF destination check to the crawl target URL only, not to the proxy address. An unauthenticated request could supply a proxy pointing at an internal IP and route the browser through it, reaching internal services and cloud-metadata endpoints, while using a perfectly valid crawl URL. The Docker API is unauthenticated by default. /crawl, /crawl/stream, and /crawl/job accept a browser_config (and crawler_config). The following all feed Chromium's egress and were unchecked: browser_config.proxy_config.server, browser_config.proxy (deprecated field), crawler_config.proxy_config.server, and --proxy-server / --proxy-pac-url / --proxy-bypass-list / --host-resolver-rules flags in browser_config.extra_args. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.8.9.

Published Jun 23, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Low

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

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

Detection templates (Nuclei) · 1

How the score was calculated

Public exploit/PoC (nuclei)+4
EPSS 1.6% (30-day exploitation probability)+11
Technical severity (high)+6
Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+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.

Exploitation

Not confirmed

Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.

EPSS FIRST

1.58%

ahead of 75% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026

Affects

Kidocode

Crawl4ai

CVSS base

7.5

High · 3 source(s)

Prioritization reference: 8.6 provisional

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

Yes

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.

Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Kidocode Crawl4ai, Unclecode Crawl4ai).
The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
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.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status	Source
Kidocode	Crawl4ai	< 0.8.9	Vulnerable	NIST National Vulnerability Database
Unclecode	Crawl4ai	version < 0.8.9	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

None

Scope

Unchanged

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.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Scored by
8.6	CVSS 3.1	High	3.9	4.0	security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.6	CVSS 3.1	High	—	—	GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
7.5	CVSS 3.1	High	3.9	3.6	nvd@nist.gov via NIST National Vulnerability Database

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: nvd@nist.gov)

Scoring entities (NIST, CNA, ADP) score independently; each score is shown with its origin. For prioritization we use 8.6 (security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database) as a conservative provisional reference — not a definitive official score.

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

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

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Public exploits, PoCs and detection templates

Public code that demonstrates or tests the flaw raises the odds of mass exploitation — and Nuclei templates help find vulnerable assets in your environment.

Detection templates (Nuclei)

crawl4ai < 0.8.9 - Server Side Request Forgery

Warning: public PoCs are sometimes disguised malware. Use them only for authorized testing in an isolated environment. This portal does not host exploit code — it only points to the sources.

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 1.58%

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 · unclecode/crawl4ai
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 · 7.5
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Source status changed · → Analyzed
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
Record created in this database
Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
CVE published
Jun 23, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

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

References

1 on the record

github.com/unclecode/crawl4ai/security/advisories/GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c
Third Party Advisory, x_refsource_CONFIRM, NIST National Vulnerability Database

Elsewhere on this site

Kidocode
every CVE for this vendor

SSRF
same class

CWE-918
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

High CVE-2026-109237 Crawl4AI 0.9.0 before 0.9.4 Untrusted Config Gate Bypass Leaks Environment Variables 3d
Medium CVE-2026-109239 Crawl4AI before 0.9.4 Blind SSRF via RobotsParser.can_fetch robots.txt Fetch 3d
High CVE-2026-109238 Crawl4AI 0.7.0 before 0.9.4 SSRF via link_preview_config URL Seeder 3d
High CVE-2026-56259 Crawl4AI - LLM Credential Exfiltration via base_url and Environment Variable Resolution Jul 12, 2026
Critical CVE-2026-56260 Crawl4AI - Arbitrary File Write via output_path Parameter Jul 12, 2026
High CVE-2026-56261 Crawl4AI - Server-Side Request Forgery via Webhook URLs Jul 10, 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-2026-53755 is "Crawl4AI: SSRF via proxy settings in the Docker server bypasses the crawl-URL SSRF check", rated High. It affects Crawl4ai (Kidocode); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 1.58% 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.