GHSA-Q567-CR4X-96W4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-02 22:35 – Updated: 2026-10-02 22:35Summary
A WEBHOOK alert channel stores a user-supplied url. When an alert fires (deployment/run failure, error groups), the webapp server (alertsWorker -> DeliverAlertService) POSTs the HMAC-signed alert payload to that URL via fetch(webhook.url, ...). The URL is never validated against a host allowlist or private-IP/metadata blocklist (a repo-wide search for 169.254, isPrivate, isLoopback, net.isIP, ssrf returns ZERO hits), and the API route's URL field is just z.string().optional() (no syntax check at all). So an authenticated tenant can point the webhook at internal infrastructure or 169.254.169.254 and the multi-tenant server fetches it.
Affected
apps/webapp, HEAD 5d99457 (current main).
Root cause
- Source (API route):
app/presenters/v3/ApiAlertChannelPresenter.server.tsApiAlertChannelData.url = z.string().optional()(no host validation); routeapp/routes/api.v1.projects.$projectRef.alertChannels.ts(PAT-auth). - Store:
app/v3/services/alerts/createAlertChannel.server.tspersists{url, secret, version}verbatim. - Sink:
app/v3/services/alerts/deliverAlert.server.ts:973fetch(webhook.url, {method:"POST", headers:{"x-trigger-signature-hmacsha256":...}, body:rawPayload}); identical atdeliverErrorGroupAlert.server.ts:258. Runs inside the webapp process;fetchfollows redirects (IMDSv1-via-redirect). No egress guard anywhere.
Runtime PoC (proven on self-host)
Seeded a project + STAGING env + a WEBHOOK channel with url=http://host.docker.internal:7766/... (an internal address from the server's POV) + a DEPLOYING deployment. Triggered via the public API POST /api/v1/deployments/deployment_ssrfpoc/fail -> 200 -> FAILED -> alertsWorker -> the server fetched the listener. Captured:
POST /ssrf-via-webhook HTTP/1.1
host: host.docker.internal:7766
x-trigger-signature-hmacsha256: <redacted>
user-agent: node
{"type":"alert.deployment.failed", ...}
The webapp server (user-agent: node) made an outbound POST to the attacker-chosen internal URL; 169.254.169.254 / any internal host works identically.
Severity
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N ~ Medium. Blind (response not reflected) + POST-only (fixed body = signed alert payload), so it enables internal port/host scanning (delivery success/timing oracle), state-changing POSTs to internal services, and IMDSv1-via-redirect — not arbitrary GET exfiltration. PR:L (authenticated tenant). Egress private-IP/metadata blocking on server-issued webhooks is industry standard; its absence is the defect.
Suggested fix
Validate the webhook URL on create (require http(s), resolve host, reject private/link-local/loopback/metadata ranges) AND re-check at fetch time (re-resolve after redirects or disable redirects / pin to resolved public IP). A shared assertPublicUrl(url) used by createAlertChannel + the two delivery sinks.
Dup
Distinct CWE-918 class from the IDOR advisories. FRESH. (The Grav maintainer independently hardened the same webhook-URL-SSRF class in grav-plugin-api commit dfcc947 on 2026-06-26 — corroborating the class is real and fixable.)
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 4.5.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "trigger.dev"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-10-02T22:35:31Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA WEBHOOK alert channel stores a user-supplied `url`. When an alert fires (deployment/run failure, error groups), the webapp server (`alertsWorker` -\u003e `DeliverAlertService`) POSTs the HMAC-signed alert payload to that URL via `fetch(webhook.url, ...)`. The URL is never validated against a host allowlist or private-IP/metadata blocklist (a repo-wide search for `169.254`, `isPrivate`, `isLoopback`, `net.isIP`, `ssrf` returns ZERO hits), and the API route\u0027s URL field is just `z.string().optional()` (no syntax check at all). So an authenticated tenant can point the webhook at internal infrastructure or `169.254.169.254` and the multi-tenant server fetches it.\n\n### Affected\n`apps/webapp`, HEAD `5d99457` (current main).\n\n### Root cause\n- Source (API route): `app/presenters/v3/ApiAlertChannelPresenter.server.ts` `ApiAlertChannelData.url = z.string().optional()` (no host validation); route `app/routes/api.v1.projects.$projectRef.alertChannels.ts` (PAT-auth).\n- Store: `app/v3/services/alerts/createAlertChannel.server.ts` persists `{url, secret, version}` verbatim.\n- Sink: `app/v3/services/alerts/deliverAlert.server.ts:973` `fetch(webhook.url, {method:\"POST\", headers:{\"x-trigger-signature-hmacsha256\":...}, body:rawPayload})`; identical at `deliverErrorGroupAlert.server.ts:258`. Runs inside the webapp process; `fetch` follows redirects (IMDSv1-via-redirect). No egress guard anywhere.\n\n### Runtime PoC (proven on self-host)\nSeeded a project + STAGING env + a WEBHOOK channel with `url=http://host.docker.internal:7766/...` (an internal address from the server\u0027s POV) + a DEPLOYING deployment. Triggered via the public API `POST /api/v1/deployments/deployment_ssrfpoc/fail` -\u003e 200 -\u003e FAILED -\u003e alertsWorker -\u003e the server fetched the listener. Captured:\n```\nPOST /ssrf-via-webhook HTTP/1.1\nhost: host.docker.internal:7766\nx-trigger-signature-hmacsha256: \u003credacted\u003e\nuser-agent: node\n{\"type\":\"alert.deployment.failed\", ...}\n```\nThe webapp server (user-agent: node) made an outbound POST to the attacker-chosen internal URL; 169.254.169.254 / any internal host works identically.\n\n### Severity\n`CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N` ~ Medium. Blind (response not reflected) + POST-only (fixed body = signed alert payload), so it enables internal port/host scanning (delivery success/timing oracle), state-changing POSTs to internal services, and IMDSv1-via-redirect \u2014 not arbitrary GET exfiltration. PR:L (authenticated tenant). Egress private-IP/metadata blocking on server-issued webhooks is industry standard; its absence is the defect.\n\n### Suggested fix\nValidate the webhook URL on create (require http(s), resolve host, reject private/link-local/loopback/metadata ranges) AND re-check at fetch time (re-resolve after redirects or disable redirects / pin to resolved public IP). A shared `assertPublicUrl(url)` used by `createAlertChannel` + the two delivery sinks.\n\n### Dup\nDistinct CWE-918 class from the IDOR advisories. FRESH. (The Grav maintainer independently hardened the same webhook-URL-SSRF class in grav-plugin-api commit dfcc947 on 2026-06-26 \u2014 corroborating the class is real and fixable.)",
"id": "GHSA-q567-cr4x-96w4",
"modified": "2026-10-02T22:35:31Z",
"published": "2026-10-02T22:35:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/triggerdotdev/trigger.dev/security/advisories/GHSA-q567-cr4x-96w4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/triggerdotdev/trigger.dev/pull/4199"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/triggerdotdev/trigger.dev/commit/34b1a181c2a1d33a53ebab88f84b05f81fea4254"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/triggerdotdev/trigger.dev"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/triggerdotdev/trigger.dev/releases/tag/v4.5.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Trigger.dev: Blind SSRF via alert-channel webhook"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.