CVE-2026-68927

MobSF has SSRF port restriction bypass in assetlinks_check

port = parsed.port
...
if port and port not in (80, 443):
    return False

host = data.getAttribute(f'{ns}:host')
port = data.getAttribute(f'{ns}:port')
...
if not valid_host(host):
    logger.warning('Invalid Host: %s', host)
    continue
shost = f'{scheme}://{host}'
if port and is_number(port):
    c_url = f'{shost}:{port}{WELL_KNOWN_PATH}'
else:
    c_url = f'{shost}{WELL_KNOWN_PATH}'
well_known[c_url] = shost

purl = urlparse(url)
if (purl.path != WELL_KNOWN_PATH
    or len(purl.query) > 0
        or len(purl.params) > 0):
    logger.warning('Invalid Assetlinks URL: %s', url)
    continue
r = requests.get(url,
                 timeout=5,
                 allow_redirects=False,
                 proxies=proxies,
                 verify=verify)

<activity android:name=".DeepLink" android:exported="true">
  <intent-filter>
    <action android:name="android.intent.action.VIEW" />
    <category android:name="android.intent.category.BROWSABLE" />
    <category android:name="android.intent.category.DEFAULT" />
    <data android:scheme="http" android:host="rebind.example" android:port="22" />
  </intent-filter>
</activity>

well_known map: {'http://rebind.example:22/.well-known/assetlinks.json': 'http://rebind.example'}
requests.get calls: [('http://rebind.example:22/.well-known/assetlinks.json', {'timeout': 5, 'allow_redirects': False, 'proxies': None, 'verify': True})]
findings: [{'url': 'http://rebind.example:22/.well-known/assetlinks.json', 'host': 'http://rebind.example', 'status_code': 200, 'status': True}]
VULNERABLE: valid_host validated only rebind.example, but assetlinks_check fetched unchecked port 22 via http://rebind.example:22/.well-known/assetlinks.json

An authenticated user who can upload or trigger analysis of a crafted APK can cause the MobSF server to make an outbound request to an attacker-selected port during Android manifest analysis. When the host is controlled by the attacker and uses DNS rebinding, the validation lookup can resolve to a public IP while the later HTTP client lookup resolves to an internal address, allowing SSRF to internal services on non-80/443 ports.

This is not arbitrary URL SSRF. The path remains fixed to /.well-known/assetlinks.json, and redirects are disabled. The bypass is that the final fetched URL is assembled after the host-only validation, so the current port guard is not applied to the actual URL.

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-2026-68927 has a CVSS score of 3.0 (Low). The vector is network-reachable, high 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 (4.5.1); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

Already deployed Kodem?

Validate the final URL after all manifest components have been applied. In particular:

1. Build c_url, then run validation on the full URL, including scheme, hostname, port, path, query, and params.
2. Reject android:port values other than 80 and 443 before appending them to the URL.
3. Prevent DNS rebinding by pinning the validated DNS result to the outbound connection or otherwise ensuring the actual HTTP request cannot resolve to a different address than the validation step.
4. Keep allow_redirects=False for the existing redirect mitigation.

1. What is CVE-2026-68927? CVE-2026-68927 is a low-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in mobsf (pip), affecting versions < 4.5.1. It is fixed in 4.5.1. Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside.
2. How severe is CVE-2026-68927? CVE-2026-68927 has a CVSS score of 3.0 (Low). 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.
3. Which versions of mobsf are affected by CVE-2026-68927? mobsf (pip) versions < 4.5.1 is affected.
4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-68927? Yes. CVE-2026-68927 is fixed in 4.5.1. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is CVE-2026-68927 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-68927 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
6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-68927 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.
7. How do I fix CVE-2026-68927? Upgrade mobsf to 4.5.1 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in mobsf