Skip to content

elFinder: SSRF protection bypass via DNS rebinding in the `fsock_get_contents()` fallback

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 3, 2026 in Studio-42/elFinder • Updated Aug 31, 2026

Package

composer studio-42/elfinder (Composer)

Affected versions

<= 2.1.69

Patched versions

2.1.70

Description

poc.zip

Summary

elFinder 2.1.69 is vulnerable to a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) protection bypass when PHP cURL is unavailable and URL uploads use the fsock_get_contents() fallback.

An attacker who can submit a URL for server-side upload can use an attacker-controlled DNS hostname that initially resolves to an allowed public IP address and subsequently resolves to a loopback or private IP address.

The URL validation checks the first resolved IP, but fsock_get_contents() opens the actual connection using the original hostname. This causes a second DNS resolution and allows the connection to reach an address different from the one that was validated.

The response from the internal service is saved as an uploaded file and can be read through elFinder. This makes the demonstrated issue a non-blind SSRF.

The most accurate classification is:

  • Vulnerability: SSRF protection bypass
  • Exploitation technique: DNS rebinding
  • Root cause: TOCTOU/double DNS resolution without IP pinning

Affected versions

Confirmed affected:

  • elFinder 2.1.69, commit 8f2c3ffafcdd52cf4515f1eec172f4eee44552ad
  • the current master branch inspected on 24 July 2026

The earliest affected version has not been determined.

Preconditions

The demonstrated readback path requires:

  • PHP without the cURL extension (curl_exec() unavailable);
  • access to the URL upload functionality;
  • permission to upload a MIME type returned by the target service;
  • network connectivity from the PHP process to the internal target;
  • DNS resolution behavior compatible with low or zero TTL responses.

Authentication requirements depend on the application integrating the elFinder connector. The attached reproduction connector is intentionally minimal and unauthenticated.

Technical details

validate_address() resolves the supplied hostname with gethostbyname(), rejects loopback and private ranges, and stores the accepted address in $info['ip']:

https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/blob/2.1.69/php/elFinder.class.php#L2587-L2655

get_remote_contents() then selects cURL when available, otherwise fsock_get_contents():

https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/blob/2.1.69/php/elFinder.class.php#L2673-L2689

The cURL implementation correctly pins the validated IP using CURLOPT_RESOLVE:

https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/blob/2.1.69/php/elFinder.class.php#L2709-L2736

However, the socket fallback ignores $info['ip'] and connects using $arr['host']:

$fp = fsockopen(
    $ssl . $arr['host'],
    $arr['port'],
    $errno,
    $errstr,
    $connect_timeout
);

Relevant code:

https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/blob/2.1.69/php/elFinder.class.php#L2762-L2866

Consequently, the address checked by validate_address() is not necessarily the address used by the socket connection.

The same problem is present after redirects: the redirect URL is validated, but the recursive socket request again connects using the hostname rather than the validated IP.

Proof of concept

A Docker-based reproduction is attached as poc.zip.

The laboratory:

  • downloads the official elFinder 2.1.69 release during the build;
  • verifies that the package version is 2.1.69;
  • verifies that curl_exec() is unavailable;
  • does not modify the elFinder core;
  • runs a deterministic DNS server and an HTTP service bound only to loopback.

Build and run:

docker build -t elfinder-ssrf-repro poc
docker run --rm -p 127.0.0.1:8081:8081 elfinder-ssrf-repro

Open:

http://127.0.0.1:8081/poc/index.html

In the elFinder interface:

  1. Select "Upload".
  2. Paste the following URL:
http://rebind.test:9001/secret.txt
  1. Wait for the upload to complete.
  2. Open the resulting secret.txt file.

Observed content:

INTERNAL_SECRET_MANUAL

The PoC DNS server responds as follows:

first A resolution       -> 203.0.113.10
subsequent A resolutions -> 127.0.0.1

Expected logs include:

DNS rebind.test type=1 answer=203.0.113.10 count=1
DNS rebind.test type=1 answer=127.0.0.1 count=2
GET /secret.txt

203.0.113.10 is used only as a deterministic laboratory address that passes the current private-address checks. The actual connection reaches 127.0.0.1:9001.

A redirect variant is also included:

http://rebind.test:9001/redirect-secret

It produces the same readable internal content.

Security impact

An attacker may cause the elFinder server to issue HTTP GET requests to services reachable from the PHP process, including:

  • loopback services;
  • private network services;
  • link-local services where reachable;
  • internal administrative or application endpoints.

Because the response body is saved and exposed through elFinder, sensitive internal information may be disclosed.

The demonstrated primitive is limited to HTTP GET requests and does not provide arbitrary request methods, bodies, or headers. Integrity and availability impact would depend on the behavior of reachable internal endpoints and are not claimed by this PoC.

Suggested CVSS

For an exposed connector matching the attached PoC:

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

Base score: 8.6 High.

This assumes:

  • no authentication is required by the connector;
  • the internal service represents a separate security scope;
  • disclosure may include highly sensitive internal data.

If authenticated user access is considered an inherent prerequisite, PR:L would result in a score of 7.7 High.

Suggested remediation

The socket connection should use the IP address returned by validate_address() rather than resolving the hostname again.

For HTTPS, the original hostname should still be used for:

  • the HTTP Host header;
  • TLS SNI;
  • certificate hostname validation.

This may require replacing fsockopen() with a connection mechanism that supports connecting to the validated IP while explicitly configuring the TLS peer name.

Every redirect destination should be independently validated and its validated IP pinned to that specific connection.

Revalidating the hostname immediately before connecting is not sufficient because it would still leave a validation-to-connection DNS resolution gap.

As a temporary mitigation, URL uploads could be rejected when cURL is unavailable, or deployments could configure urlUploadFilter to reject URL uploads.

Additional observation

After a successful URL fetch, the upload path calls:

get_headers($url, true)

Relevant code:

https://github.com/Studio-42/elFinder/blob/2.1.69/php/elFinder.class.php#L3356-L3374

This performs another request using the original hostname without reusing the validated and pinned connection. It may therefore introduce an additional blind SSRF request, potentially even when the cURL download path is selected.

This additional request is not required for the attached non-blind fsock_get_contents() PoC. It should nevertheless be reviewed during remediation. Ideally, filename and response-header information should be collected from the already validated HTTP response instead of issuing a separate request.

Disclosure

Initial private report date: 24/07/2026

Reporter contact: Marco Lunardi - marcolunardi90@gmail.com

References

@nao-pon nao-pon published to Studio-42/elFinder Aug 3, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 31, 2026
Reviewed Aug 31, 2026
Last updated Aug 31, 2026

Severity

High

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A: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.
(26th percentile)

Weaknesses

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-2026-81889

GHSA ID

GHSA-8x3q-jpjh-qh5c

Source code

Credits

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