Vulnerability Database

351,760

Total vulnerabilities in the database

Crawl4AI: Unauthenticated SSRF on the Docker server streaming crawl path (/crawl/stream) — Crawl4AI

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Summary

The Docker API server applied its SSRF destination check (validate_url_destination) on the non-streaming /crawl path but not on the streaming path. handle_stream_crawl_request passed seed URLs straight to the crawler with no destination validation. A remote, unauthenticated client could call POST /crawl/stream (or POST /crawl with crawler_config.stream=true, which short-circuits to the same handler) with a URL pointing at an internal, private, or link-local address; the server fetched it and streamed the response body back. The Docker API is unauthenticated by default.

Affected paths

POST /crawl/stream, and POST /crawl with crawler_config.stream=true (both route to handle_stream_crawl_request, deploy/docker/api.py).

Impact

Unauthenticated read server-side request forgery: an attacker reads internal-only services and cloud-metadata endpoints (e.g. http://169.254.169.254/ for IAM credentials), with the response body streamed back. This is the same class and severity as the project's prior "SSRF via Direct Crawl Endpoints" advisory; /crawl/stream is part of that endpoint family and was never covered by the destination check.

Fix

handle_stream_crawl_request now validates every seed URL's destination with the same global-routability check as handle_crawl_request, before any fetch. The SSRF regression test was hardened to assert per-handler coverage (including the streaming handler) rather than a bare occurrence count, which previously let this gap pass.

Workarounds

  • Upgrade to the patched version (0.9.0).
  • Enable authentication and restrict who can reach the API (note: this does not constrain which URL the API fetches).
  • Restrict the container's outbound network access (egress firewall / no metadata route).

Credits

KOH Jun Sheng - reported the streaming-path SSRF with a runnable PoC and noted the count-based regression test that masked it, plus the shared root cause with redirect/deep-crawl link following.

  • Published: Jun 18, 2026
  • Updated: Jun 19, 2026
  • GHSA: GHSA-wm69-2pc3-rmmf
  • Severity: High
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

CVSS v3:

  • Severity: High
  • Score: 8.6
  • AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

CWEs:

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.