How severe is GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c?

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c has a CVSS score of 8.6/10, rated HIGH. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c?

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c affects the following packages: crawl4ai (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c?

Update crawl4ai to 0.8.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for crawl4ai, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

Restrict outbound requests from the affected component to an allowlist of hosts, block access to link-local and internal address ranges at the network layer, and require authentication on internal services so a forged request cannot reach them unauthenticated.

Is GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c?

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 1.6%, placing it in the 74th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c?

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c is classified as Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (CWE-918). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation. This is a high-impact weakness class that often enables remote code execution or data exposure.

Is there exploit tooling available for GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c?

A Nuclei detection template exists for GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c, meaning automated scanners can fingerprint it. Public exploit tooling significantly increases real-world risk — prioritize patching and ensure detection coverage. Exploit tooling should only ever be used in isolated, authorized testing environments.

When was GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c was published on June 16, 2026 and was last updated on July 20, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐍

🐍 PyPI

Not in CISA KEV

HIGH severity

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c — crawl4ai

HIGH

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c is a high-severity (CVSS 8.6) Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in crawl4ai. A fix is available for crawl4ai — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Crawl4AI: SSRF via proxy settings in the Docker server bypasses the crawl-URL SSRF check

Also known asCVE-2026-53755PYSEC-2026-588

Published

Jun 16, 2026

Updated

Jul 20, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Sep 26, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

1.6%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs74th percentile — riskier than 74% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). Outside the shaded patch-first corner.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 379,842 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Counts from FIRST.org, log-scaled.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐍crawl4ai

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Summary

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.

Affected paths

/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
--proxy-server / --proxy-pac-url / --proxy-bypass-list / --host-resolver-rules flags in browser_config.extra_args

Attack

An attacker sends /crawl with a benign, validation-passing URL but a proxy_config.server pointing at an internal IP. Chromium routes all requests through that proxy. For plain-HTTP targets the proxy receives the full request and can return any content, which is then returned verbatim in the crawl result (results[0].html / cleaned_html / markdown). In a real deployment the proxy would be an attacker-controlled server pointing at cloud metadata (e.g. AWS IMDSv1 at 169.254.169.254) to retrieve IAM credential tokens.

Impact

Unauthenticated server-side request forgery to internal services and cloud-metadata endpoints, with the response returned to the attacker.

Fix

Every proxy destination is validated with the same global-routability check used for crawl URLs (reject any resolved address that is not is_global, including IPv6 transition forms) before the browser is constructed; proxy/DNS-redirecting flags are stripped from extra_args. A legitimate public proxy still works. Honors CRAWL4AI_ALLOW_INTERNAL_URLS.

Workarounds

Upgrade to the patched version (0.8.9).
Enable authentication (CRAWL4AI_API_TOKEN).
Restrict the container's outbound network access (egress firewall / no metadata route).

Credits

Geo (geo-chen) - reported the proxy_config.server SSRF with a clear PoC.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`crawl4ai`	all versions	0.8.9`pip install --upgrade 'crawl4ai==0.8.9'`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

crawl4aikidocode

< 0.8.9

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for crawl4ai, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update crawl4ai to 0.8.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Restrict outbound requests from the affected component to an allowlist of hosts, block access to link-local and internal address ranges at the network layer, and require authentication on internal services so a forged request cannot reach them unauthenticated.

How to detect GHSA-6qhc-x826-342c

A community-maintained Nuclei template exists for this CVE. You can scan for it directly:

nuclei -id ghsa-6qhc-x826-342c -u https://target

Template: crawl4ai < 0.8.9 - Server Side Request Forgery
Severity: high
Impact: Unauthenticated attackers can access internal services and cloud metadata, potentially leading to sensitive information disclosure and further network compromise.
Remediation: Update to version 0.8.9 or later.

Template by ProjectDiscovery nuclei-templates (str4k3r), MIT licensed. View the full template. Scan only systems you are authorised to test.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary 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. ### Affected paths `/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` - `bro