Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
📦
📦 npm
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf

HIGH

GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf is a high-severity (CVSS 8.5) CWE-367 vulnerability in @budibase/backend-core. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

@budibase/backend-core has potential SSRF DNS rebinding bypass in outbound fetch validation

Also known asCVE-2026-54353
Published
Jun 22, 2026
Updated
Jun 22, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Aug 13, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

Proof-of-concept exploit code exists

  • CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk+0.01%
Lower risk than most CVEs5th percentile — riskier than 5% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.23%0.47%0.70%0.2%0.1%0.2%Jul 26Aug 26Aug 26

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 358,648 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.

6other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream
@budibase/backend-corenpm
7Kdownloads / week

Description

Summary

Authenticated users with automation permissions can bypass Budibase's SSRF blacklist through DNS rebinding.

The outbound fetch flow validates a hostname against the blacklist before the request is sent, but the actual socket connection later performs a separate DNS lookup through node-fetch. Since the validated IPs are never pinned to the connection, an attacker-controlled hostname can return a public IP during validation and a private/internal IP during the real connection.

This results in a non-blind SSRF primitive against internal services reachable from the Budibase host, including loopback, RFC1918 ranges, and cloud metadata endpoints.

Details

The issue comes from the outbound fetch validation flow resolving DNS twice:

During blacklist validation Again during the real socket connection

The first lookup result is discarded after validation, so the second lookup is free to resolve to a different IP.

This creates a classic TOCTOU DNS rebinding issue.

Affected flow in:

packages/backend-core/src/utils/outboundFetch.ts

async function throwIfUnsafe(url: string): Promise<void> {
  const parsed = parseUrl(url)

  if (await isBlacklisted(parsed.hostname)) {
    throw new Error("URL is blocked or could not be resolved safely.")
  }
}

for (let redirects = 0; redirects <= MAX_REDIRECTS; redirects++) {
  await throwIfUnsafe(nextUrl)

  const response = await fetchFn(nextUrl, nextRequest)

  // ...
}

fetchFn uses plain node-fetch with no custom http.Agent / https.Agent, so the underlying socket performs its own independent dns.lookup after validation completes.

The same pattern also exists in:

packages/server/src/automations/steps/utils.ts

await throwIfBlacklisted(nextUrl)

const response = await fetch(nextUrl, nextRequest)

The blacklist implementation resolves hostnames but only returns a boolean:

packages/backend-core/src/blacklist/blacklist.ts

async function lookup(address: string): Promise<string[]> {
  address = parseAddress(address)

  const addresses = await performLookup(address, { all: true })

  return addresses.map(addr => addr.address)
}

export async function isBlacklisted(address: string): Promise<boolean> {
  // ...

  if (!net.isIP(address)) {
    try {
      ips = await lookup(address)
    } catch (e) {
      /* ... */
    }
  } else {
    ips = [address]
  }

  return ips.some(ip => blackList!.check(ip, getIpVersion(ip)))
}

The resolved IPs are discarded, so callers cannot pin the later socket connection to the validated addresses.

An attacker controlling authoritative DNS for a hostname can therefore return:

a public IP during validation a private/internal IP during the actual connection

Anything routing through these helpers inherits the issue, including:

outgoing webhook Slack Discord Make Zapier n8n AI extract object-store fetches

Several of these steps return upstream response content directly into automation output, which makes the SSRF non-blind.

PoC

Tested locally against a self-hosted build from master. No Budibase-operated infrastructure was touched.

Run Budibase locally.

Start a harmless local HTTP listener:

python3 -m http.server 8080 --bind 127.0.0.1

Use a rebinding hostname such as:

7f000001.cb007264.rbndr.us

which rotates between:

127.0.0.1 203.0.113.100

Steps to reproduce:

Log into Budibase with automation permissions. Create an automation using the Outgoing Webhook step. Set the URL to: http://<rebinding-host>:8080/ Trigger the automation.

Observed result:

The blacklist validation resolves the hostname to the public IP and allows the request. node-fetch performs a second DNS lookup during socket creation. The second lookup resolves to 127.0.0.1. The TCP connection lands on the local service. The local server response body appears directly in the automation output. Impact

This produces a non-blind read-SSRF primitive against anything reachable from the Budibase host process, including:

loopback services (127.0.0.1) RFC1918 ranges internal Kubernetes/VPC services cloud metadata endpoints (169.254.169.254)

On cloud deployments without IMDSv2 enforcement, this may expose temporary IAM credentials via:

/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/<role>

On multi-tenant hosted deployments, this may also create potential cross-tenant access paths through shared internal infrastructure.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
📦npm@budibase/backend-coreall versions3.39.9

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @budibase/backend-core. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

  2. Fix

    Update @budibase/backend-core to 3.39.9 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Summary Authenticated users with automation permissions can bypass Budibase's SSRF blacklist through DNS rebinding. The outbound fetch flow validates a hostname against the blacklist before the request is sent, but the actual socket connection later performs a separate DNS lookup through node-fetch. Since the validated IPs are never pinned to the connection, an attacker-controlled hostname can return a public IP during validation and a private/internal IP during the real connection. This results in a non-blind SSRF primitive against internal services reachable from the Budibase host, includ
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf across npm dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

GHSA-gfq7-5x4g-3xhf: @budibase/backend-co… | O3 Security