The Symfony HttpClient component NoPrivateNetworkHttpClient does not pin the checked IP address of cached hosts, allowing for DNS rebinding to bypass private network restrictions, resulting in enumeration of internal hosts and ports in Symfony versions prior to 5.4.56, 6.x prior to 6.4.50, 7.x prior to 7.4.23, and 8.x prior to 8.1.11.
NoPrivateNetworkHttpClient resolves the host of each request and checks the IP before connecting. It caches the result per host, and passes the IP to the decorated client through the resolve option so that the client connects to the exact IP that was checked. The issue is that resolve was only passed on the first lookup of a host: on subsequent requests, the decorated client resolved the host again on its own.
An attacker who controls a host's DNS can exploit this with DNS rebinding by answering the first lookup with a public IP, and subsequent lookups with a private IP, so when an application sends several requests to that host through the same client, the later requests connect to the private IP. This happens, for example, when an application fetches several URLs of a repository provided by a user. The check of the primary_ip in the on_progress callback still aborts the request before anything is sent, but the connection is made, and the error differs depending on whether the port is open or closed. This allows enumerating internal hosts and ports, as in CVE-2024-50342.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (2.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 2.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 2.3 LOWCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
- EG Likelihood
- 0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-11-10). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it