CVE Intelligence
High SSRF

CVE-2026-77294 — TREK: Server-Side Request Forgery via User-Configurable LLM Base URL

TREK is a collaborative travel planner. Prior to 3.3.0, TREK allows an authenticated user to store an attacker-controlled llm_base_url through the settings API when the LLM_PARSING feature is enabled. Write permission to the target trip instance is required to trigger the vulnerable AI-assisted import path. The value is consumed by the clients in server/src/nest/llm-parse/clients/openai-compatible.client.ts, server/src/nest/llm-parse/clients/anthropic.client.ts, and server/src/nest/llm-parse/router/ollama-format.client.ts without applying the server-side request forgery guard. Triggering AI-assisted trip parsing causes the server to request the supplied destination, and upstream error response text can be returned in parsing warnings. This permits internal service discovery and access to link-local cloud metadata, with possible disclosure of infrastructure credentials and subsequent modification of protected cloud resources. This issue is fixed in version 3.3.0.

Published Sep 24, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

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
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

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
0.31%
ahead of 22% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Mauriceboe
Trek
CVSS base
8.1
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
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Total
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 (Mauriceboe Trek).
  2. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  3. 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
Mauriceboe Trek version < 3.3.0 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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
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
8.1 CVSS 3.1 High 2.8 5.2 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.1 CVSS 3.1 High — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

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

Other CVEs with this weakness →

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 · mauriceboe/trek
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 8.1
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Sep 24, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

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

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-77293 TREK: Cross-user note-file deletion (IDOR / Broken Access Control) 21d
  • CVE-2026-77320 TREK: Public trip share link ignores the `share_map` permission server-side (client-enforced authorization → itinerary/location disclosure) 21d
  • CVE-2026-77321 TREK MCP trip summary bypasses delegated OAuth read scopes 21d
  • CVE-2026-62945 TREK: Cross-trip reservation title disclosure via file links Aug 20, 2026
  • CVE-2026-54509 TREK IDOR: any authenticated user can read another user's journey share token (full journey leak) Aug 20, 2026
  • CVE-2026-54505 TREK: Stored cross-user HTML injection via trip title in the Journey suggestion banner Aug 20, 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-2026-77294 is "TREK: Server-Side Request Forgery via User-Configurable LLM Base URL", rated High. It affects Trek (Mauriceboe); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.31% 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.