How severe is GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x?

GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x affects the following packages: @backstage/plugin-auth-backend (npm). Ecosystems affected: npm.

How do I fix GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x?

Update @backstage/plugin-auth-backend to 0.27.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x in my npm dependencies?

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

How do I mitigate GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x 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-qp4c-xg64-7c6x actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x 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-qp4c-xg64-7c6x?

GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.3%, placing it in the 28th 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-qp4c-xg64-7c6x?

GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x 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.

When was GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x was published on March 12, 2026 and was last updated on April 15, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

📦 npm

Not in CISA KEV

@backstage/plugin-auth-backend: SSRF in experimental CIMD metadata fetchGHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x

Fix: backstage/backstage@17038ab

GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in @backstage/plugin-auth-backend. A fix is available for @backstage/plugin-auth-backend — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-32236

Published

Mar 12, 2026

Updated

Apr 15, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Nov 7, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

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-qp4c-xg64-7c6x.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk+0.03%

Lower risk than most CVEs28th percentile — riskier than 28% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

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

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.

10other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream

@backstage/plugin-auth-backendnpm

210Kdownloads / week

Description

Impact

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in @backstage/plugin-auth-backend when auth.experimentalClientIdMetadataDocuments.enabled is set to true. The CIMD metadata fetch validates the initial client_id hostname against private IP ranges but does not apply the same validation after HTTP redirects.

The practical impact is limited. The attacker cannot read the response body from the internal request, cannot control request headers or method, and the feature must be explicitly enabled via an experimental flag that is off by default. Deployments that restrict allowedClientIdPatterns to specific trusted domains are not affected.

Patches

Patched in @backstage/plugin-auth-backend version 0.27.1. The fix disables HTTP redirect following when fetching CIMD metadata documents.

Workarounds

Disable the experimental CIMD feature by removing or setting auth.experimentalClientIdMetadataDocuments.enabled to false in your app-config. This is the default configuration. Alternatively, restrict allowedClientIdPatterns to specific trusted domains rather than using the default wildcard pattern.

References

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
📦npm	`@backstage/plugin-auth-backend`	all versions	0.27.1`npm install @backstage/plugin-auth-backend@0.27.1`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

backstagelinuxfoundation

≤ 0.27.0

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @backstage/plugin-auth-backend, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update @backstage/plugin-auth-backend to 0.27.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x 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.

Fixing This On Your OS

If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.

Red Hat

Workaround published by Red Hat

Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base or stability.

Source: Red Hat security advisory for GHSA-qp4c-xg64-7c6x (CC BY 4.0)

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in `@backstage/plugin-auth-backend` when `auth.experimentalClientIdMetadataDocuments.enabled` is set to `true`. The CIMD metadata fetch validates the initial `client_id` hostname against private IP ranges but does not apply the same validation after HTTP redirects. Th