CVE-2026-52776: Trestle URLSecurityValidator SSRF allowlist bypass via IPv4-mapped IPv6 and 0.0.0.0
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 34/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.43% (FIRST EPSS).
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. A low-privileged account is enough. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- Fixed version: compliance-trestle (PyPI) 4.1.0.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to compliance-trestle (PyPI) 4.1.0 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Compliance-trestle (Trestle) is a tooling platform for managing compliance as code. In versions before 3.12.4 and versions 4.0.0 through 4.0.3, the URLSecurityValidator that guards trestle's remote-fetch paths against server-side request forgery can be bypassed to reach loopback, link-local, cloud-metadata, and internal network endpoints it was designed to block. The blocklist does not canonicalize IPv4-mapped IPv6 literals such as [::ffff:169.254.169.254], which resolve to IPv6Address objects that never match the blocked IPv4 ranges, and it does not block the unspecified address 0.0.0.0, which routes to local services on Linux and inside containers. An attacker who can supply or influence an OSCAL artifact that trestle fetches, such as a malicious profile whose imports reference one of these bypass URLs, can cause the HTTPSFetcher and SFTPFetcher paths to contact cloud instance-metadata services, loopback interfaces, or internal hosts. This issue is fixed in versions 3.12.4 and 4.1.0.
- Published
- Aug 26, 2026
- Updated
- Sep 9, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.4% · 38th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-184
Report tools
Action score
34
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 34 / 40 · 8.6 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.4%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 8.6
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
oscal-compass compliance-trestle
- < 3.12.4, >= 4.0.0, < 4.1.0affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | compliance-trestle | before 4.1.0 | 4.1.0 |
Same product
oscal-compass: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-46345compliance-trestle - jinja has an Arbitrary File Write via Path Traversal33Monitor
- CVE-2026-57170Trestle SSTI in Jinja2 include tags allows arbitrary code execution (Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-46439)31Monitor
- CVE-2026-54757Trestle has Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) via Recursive Template Re-evaluation of Untrusted Data31Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-46380Aug 14, 2026 · compliance-trestle Vulnerable to SSRF in Remote Fetching Subsystem26Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2026-46439Aug 14, 2026 · compliance-trestle Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Recursive Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI)31Monitor
- Later →CVE-2026-57171Aug 26, 2026 · Trestle is vulnerable to arbitrary file write via path traversal in author generate commands (Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-46345)30Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| PyPI:compliance-trestle | 4.1.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- A low-privileged account is enough.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- Integrity
- Availability
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-184 · Incomplete List of Disallowed InputsCVSS vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Double EncodingCAPEC-120likelihood: Low · Medium
- Command DelimitersCAPEC-15likelihood: High · High
- Flash InjectionCAPEC-182likelihood: High · Medium
- Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input FiltersCAPEC-3likelihood: Medium · Medium
- Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation LayersCAPEC-43likelihood: Medium · High
- Argument InjectionCAPEC-6likelihood: High · High
- Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation LogicCAPEC-71likelihood: Medium · High
- User-Controlled FilenameCAPEC-73likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (2 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.