CVE-2026-88001: Open WebUI: SSRF via redirects reaches internal/metadata IPs

GHSA-5x7x-4c3c-qf5w MEDIUM CISA: TRACK*
Published September 9, 2026
CISO Take

Open WebUI's web-fetch features (web search, URL ingestion, the page-fetch tool, and chat image URLs) check the operator's excluded-host list and a private-address filter only against the URL the user submits, not against where an HTTP redirect actually sends the request — so any authenticated user, regardless of role, can submit a URL that redirects to a blocked host or to internal addresses like loopback, RFC1918 ranges, or a cloud provider's metadata endpoint. This only matters where the operator has set AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS=true, which is off by default, so exposure is limited to deployments that deliberately enabled redirect-following on this specific known-hard SSRF surface. There is no EPSS score, no CISA KEV listing, and no public exploit or scanner template for this CVE, and the vendor's own advisory notes the response-exfiltration path (returning fetched content to the attacker) was only demonstrated on the requests-based fetch paths, not confirmed for the aiohttp/IP-literal path that reaches private addresses. Patch to Open WebUI 0.11.1, which re-checks the excluded-host list and private-address filter on every redirect hop on both HTTP clients; if you route outbound fetches through a forward proxy, also enforce destination restrictions there since the upgrade alone doesn't cover that path. Detection: monitor egress from the Open WebUI host for connections to 169.254.169.254 or RFC1918 ranges originating from fetch-triggering endpoints (web search, URL ingestion, tool calls).

Sources: NVD GitHub Advisory ATLAS

What is the risk?

Medium severity (CVSS 3.1: 5.0, AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N) reflects a straightforward, low-complexity SSRF gated by a non-default configuration flag. Exploitability is technically trivial once redirects are enabled — no internal reconnaissance is needed since loopback and cloud metadata addresses are fixed and identical across deployments — but the precondition (AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS=true) significantly narrows real-world exposure. No EPSS data, no KEV listing, and no public PoC/scanner exist, so there is no evidence of active or automated exploitation. The confidentiality impact is capped (C:L) because verified data exfiltration back to the attacker was only demonstrated on the requests-based paths that don't reach private IPs; the aiohttp path that does reach private/metadata addresses was not confirmed to leak the response body verbatim.

How does the attack unfold?

Initial Access
An attacker obtains or already holds any authenticated Open WebUI account, regardless of role, on a deployment where AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS is enabled.
AML.T0012
Tool Invocation
The attacker submits a URL to web search, URL ingestion, the page-fetch tool, or a chat image URL, pointing to a server the attacker controls.
AML.T0053
Redirect Exploitation
The attacker-controlled server responds with an HTTP redirect to an excluded host or an internal/cloud-metadata address; neither the excluded-host list nor the private-address check is re-applied to the redirect destination.
AML.T0049
Impact
Open WebUI's server fetches the internal or excluded resource, and depending on the code path, the response content surfaces in web search results, a retrievable RAG collection, or model input, exposing internal network data to the attacker.

What systems are affected?

Package Ecosystem Vulnerable Range Patched
Open WebUI pip >= 0.9.5, <= 0.11.0 0.11.1
151.8K 3 dependents Pushed 7d ago 83% patched ~5d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use Open WebUI? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
5.0 / 10
EPSS
0.3%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Higher than 20% of all CVEs
Exploitation Status
Exploit Available
Exploitation: MEDIUM
Sophistication
Trivial
Exploitation Confidence
medium
CISA SSVC: Public PoC
Composite signal derived from CISA KEV, VulnCheck KEV, CISA SSVC, EPSS, Metasploit, Exploit-DB, trickest/cve, Nuclei templates, and inthewild.io exploitation reports.

What is the attack surface?

AV AC PR UI S C I A
AV Network
AC Low
PR Low
UI None
S Changed
C Low
I None
A None

What should I do?

1 step
  1. 1) Upgrade to Open WebUI 0.11.1, which re-applies the excluded-host list and private-address check on every redirect hop for both the aiohttp and requests clients. 2) If you cannot upgrade immediately, set AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS=false (the default) to fully close this path. 3) If outbound fetches route through a forward proxy, add destination restrictions on the proxy itself — the vendor confirms the fix does not cover proxied egress. 4) Post-upgrade, verify the excluded-host list still reflects your intended internal blocklist (169.254.169.254 and RFC1918 ranges). 5) Detection: alert on outbound connections from the Open WebUI process to 169.254.169.254 or private ranges, and audit URL ingestion / web search / page-fetch logs for redirect chains terminating in internal IPs.

What does CISA's SSVC say?

Decision Track*
Exploitation poc
Automatable No
Technical Impact partial

Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.

How is it classified?

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

This CVE is relevant to:

NIST AI RMF
MANAGE-4.1 - Third-party AI system risks are monitored and managed
OWASP LLM Top 10
LLM08 - Excessive Agency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-88001?

Open WebUI's web-fetch features (web search, URL ingestion, the page-fetch tool, and chat image URLs) check the operator's excluded-host list and a private-address filter only against the URL the user submits, not against where an HTTP redirect actually sends the request — so any authenticated user, regardless of role, can submit a URL that redirects to a blocked host or to internal addresses like loopback, RFC1918 ranges, or a cloud provider's metadata endpoint. This only matters where the operator has set AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS=true, which is off by default, so exposure is limited to deployments that deliberately enabled redirect-following on this specific known-hard SSRF surface. There is no EPSS score, no CISA KEV listing, and no public exploit or scanner template for this CVE, and the vendor's own advisory notes the response-exfiltration path (returning fetched content to the attacker) was only demonstrated on the requests-based fetch paths, not confirmed for the aiohttp/IP-literal path that reaches private addresses. Patch to Open WebUI 0.11.1, which re-checks the excluded-host list and private-address filter on every redirect hop on both HTTP clients; if you route outbound fetches through a forward proxy, also enforce destination restrictions there since the upgrade alone doesn't cover that path. Detection: monitor egress from the Open WebUI host for connections to 169.254.169.254 or RFC1918 ranges originating from fetch-triggering endpoints (web search, URL ingestion, tool calls).

Is CVE-2026-88001 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-88001 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-88001?

1) Upgrade to Open WebUI 0.11.1, which re-applies the excluded-host list and private-address check on every redirect hop for both the aiohttp and requests clients. 2) If you cannot upgrade immediately, set AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS=false (the default) to fully close this path. 3) If outbound fetches route through a forward proxy, add destination restrictions on the proxy itself — the vendor confirms the fix does not cover proxied egress. 4) Post-upgrade, verify the excluded-host list still reflects your intended internal blocklist (169.254.169.254 and RFC1918 ranges). 5) Detection: alert on outbound connections from the Open WebUI process to 169.254.169.254 or private ranges, and audit URL ingestion / web search / page-fetch logs for redirect chains terminating in internal IPs.

What systems are affected by CVE-2026-88001?

This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: RAG pipelines, agent frameworks, web search integration, chat/inference UI.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-88001?

CVE-2026-88001 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.0 (MEDIUM). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.27%.

What is the AI security impact?

Affected AI Architectures

RAG pipelinesagent frameworksweb search integrationchat/inference UI

MITRE ATLAS Techniques

AML.T0049 Exploit Public-Facing Application
AML.T0053 AI Agent Tool Invocation

Compliance Controls Affected

NIST AI RMF: MANAGE-4.1
OWASP LLM Top 10: LLM08

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

## Summary Open WebUI protects server-side web fetches with two controls: the operator's list of excluded hosts, and a check that refuses private and internal addresses. Neither control was applied to the destination of an HTTP redirect. On a deployment where redirect following is enabled, any authenticated user who can cause the server to fetch a URL could submit a page that redirects, and the server would fetch the redirect destination without either control being applied to it. The server therefore connects to hosts the operator excluded, and to internal addresses including loopback, private networks and cloud metadata endpoints. ## Preconditions `AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS` must be set to `true`. Its default is `false`, and on the default the affected fetch paths do not follow redirects at all, so a deployment that has not changed this setting is not affected. The attacker needs an authenticated account of any role, with access to any feature that causes the server to fetch a URL. Web search, ingesting a URL into a collection, the built-in page fetch tool and image URLs in chat all reach it. No internal hostnames need to be known, because the loopback and cloud metadata addresses are fixed and identical on every deployment. Neither `ENABLE_LOCAL_WEB_FETCH` at its default of `false` nor any set of entries in `WEB_FETCH_FILTER_LIST` prevents this. ## Impact An authenticated user can make the server issue requests to hosts the operator deliberately excluded, and to addresses on the internal network including loopback, private ranges and the cloud metadata endpoints of the major providers. What reaches the attacker depends on which HTTP client the fetch path uses, and is stated here as verified rather than assumed. On the paths built on `requests`, the fetched body is returned to the caller, so the response of an excluded host is readable: the built-in page fetch tool hands it to the model, and the URL ingestion endpoint returns it in its response. Those paths kept a working private-address check at connection time, so what they reach is excluded public hosts and internal names, not private IP addresses. On the paths built on aiohttp, which are the ones that reach private addresses written as IP literals, fetched content reaches the web search response, a retrievable collection, or model input as base64 through chat image URLs. A path on that client returning an attacker-chosen response verbatim to the requester was not demonstrated. The operator has no configuration that prevents this. `169.254.169.254` ships in the default excluded list, so an operator reviewing their configuration would reasonably conclude the metadata endpoint is out of reach. The documentation for the redirect setting further recommends the excluded-host list as a compensating control when enabling redirects, and that is precisely the control the redirect path skipped. ## Fix Fixed in 0.11.1 by https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/pull/27823. The excluded-host list is now evaluated once per request on both HTTP clients, where the real destination is known and a reused connection cannot skip it, so it applies to every redirect hop. The private-address check stays at connection time and is now hooked where aiohttp resolves a host, which is also reached for hosts written as IP literals. One case is not resolved by the upgrade alone. Where the server reaches the internet through a forward proxy, the private-address check sees the proxy's address rather than the final destination, so it does not constrain where the proxy is asked to connect. The excluded-host list is still applied to the destination on that path. Operators who route outbound fetches through a proxy should enforce destination restrictions on the proxy itself. ## Root cause Affected components: - the web retrieval fetch paths, on both the aiohttp and `requests` clients - the built-in page fetch tool - the URL ingestion endpoint Affected setup: builds that carry the redirect-following setting, which was introduced in 0.9.5. Earlier builds have no such setting. The two controls sat at different layers, and each sat where only the originally submitted URL passes through. The excluded-host list was consulted inside URL validation, which runs once against what the user submitted, so a redirect destination never reached it on either client. The private-address check was placed inside the aiohttp resolver, and aiohttp answers a host written as an IP address itself without consulting a resolver, so for exactly those hosts the check never ran. Redirect following was added later as an option, and neither control was revisited at that point, so turning it on moved the real destination out of reach of both. ## Proof of concept Both vectors were reproduced against the shipped code of 0.11.0 and confirmed closed against 0.11.1, with `AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS=true` in both runs. A local HTTP server serves a redirect and a body, DNS is stubbed so the test hostnames resolve to loopback, and the guards themselves are unmodified. Excluded-host list, redirect destination `203.0.113.1` excluded, submitted URL not excluded: ``` 0.11.0 no check runs against the redirect destination, the server opens a connection to it 0.11.1 blocked at the redirect hop before any connection is attempted ``` Private-address check, host written as an IP literal, with `ENABLE_LOCAL_WEB_FETCH` at its default of `false`: ``` 0.11.0 fetch returned 'LOOPBACK-CONTENT-REACHED', no check ran 0.11.1 blocked, non-global address 127.0.0.1 ``` Instrumenting 0.11.1 on a redirect that is allowed shows both controls running against the redirect destination as well as the submitted URL, and an ordinary public fetch is unaffected. ## Credits - @arpitjain099, original report: the excluded-host list is not re-applied to redirect destinations. - @Classic298: the private-address check is bypassed for redirect destinations written as IP literals, through aiohttp's resolver shortcut.

Exploitation Scenario

A low-privilege authenticated Open WebUI user (on a deployment where AIOHTTP_CLIENT_ALLOW_REDIRECTS=true) submits a URL to the web search feature, the URL-ingestion endpoint, or the built-in page-fetch tool that operator-excluded-host and private-IP checks would normally reject. The submitted URL itself looks benign and passes validation, but the attacker controls a server that responds with an HTTP redirect to http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/ (cloud metadata) or to an internal admin host on the excluded list. Because both security controls only inspect the originally submitted URL, the server follows the redirect and fetches the internal resource. Depending on which HTTP client handled the request, the fetched content may land in the web search results shown to the user, get indexed into a retrievable RAG collection, or be passed to the model as base64 image input — giving the attacker a path to read internal service responses or discover cloud instance metadata (potentially including IAM credentials) that would otherwise be network-isolated from them.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-918 — 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.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

Timeline

Published
September 9, 2026
Last Modified
September 10, 2026
First Seen
September 10, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities