Skip to content

Hackney has SSRF allowlist bypass in hackney_url:normalize/2 via percent-encoded host

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 25, 2026 in benoitc/hackney • Updated Jun 26, 2026

Package

erlang hackney (Erlang)

Affected versions

>= 0.13.0, < 4.0.1

Patched versions

4.0.1

Description

Summary

hackney_url:normalize/2 URL-decodes the host component of a parsed URL, but the caller's SSRF allowlist runs before normalization using OTP's uri_string:parse/1 and inet:parse_address/1, neither of which decodes percent-escapes in hostnames. A URL like http://%31%32%37%2E%30%2E%30%2E%31/ presents an encoded, non-IP-looking host to the validator, which passes the allowlist check; hackney's normalizer then decodes it to 127.0.0.1 and connects to loopback. Because hackney:request/5 always calls normalize/2 with no opt-out, every request path that accepts a binary or list URL is affected. This is a parser-differential SSRF in the same class as CVE-2025-1211, but in a different function.

Details

In src/hackney_url.erl (lines 161–186), normalize/2 checks whether the parsed host is already a dotted-quad or IPv6 literal via inet_parse:address/1. Percent-encoded forms like %31%32%37%2E%30%2E%30%2E%31 fail that check and fall into the catch-all branch, where urldecode/1 decodes the host before passing it to IDNA conversion:

Host1 = binary_to_list(
           urldecode(unicode:characters_to_binary(Host0))
         ),

The decoded host ("127.0.0.1") replaces the original in the returned #hackney_url{} record. hackney:request/5 at src/hackney.erl:463 always calls normalize/2, so the decoded host is what do_dispatch/1 and add_host_header/2 ultimately use. The on-wire Host: header and the TCP connect target both reflect the decoded value.

The same payload pattern reaches the AWS/GCP/Azure IMDS (169.254.169.254), RFC1918 ranges, and any localhost admin endpoint. The 1.21.0 patch for CVE-2025-1211 fixed a separate differential in parse_url/1 and did not touch normalize/2.

PoC

  1. Validate the URL with the canonical Erlang SSRF allowlist: uri_string:parse/1 returns host <<"%31%32%37%2E%30%2E%30%2E%31">>, inet:parse_address/1 returns {error, einval}, so the allowlist accepts it.
  2. Pass the same URL to hackney:get/1.
  3. hackney's normalize/2 decodes the host to "127.0.0.1" and connects to 127.0.0.1:80. The internal service receives the request with Host: 127.0.0.1.

Impact

Unauthenticated SSRF bypassing the canonical Erlang allowlist pattern. Affects hackney 0.13.0 through 4.0.0 for any application that accepts attacker-supplied URLs. Targets include cloud IMDS endpoints, localhost admin interfaces, and RFC1918 backends. CVSS v4.0: 6.9 (MEDIUM).

Resources

References

@benoitc benoitc published to benoitc/hackney May 25, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database May 25, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jun 26, 2026
Reviewed Jun 26, 2026
Last updated Jun 26, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(14th percentile)

Weaknesses

Interpretation Conflict

Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state. Learn more on MITRE.

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-47076

GHSA ID

GHSA-pj7v-xfvx-wmjq

Source code

Credits

Dependabot alerts are not supported on some or all of the ecosystems on this advisory.

Learn more about GitHub language support

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.