- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- Fixed in 3.15.0
- Who is exposed
- Not reported
Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 3.15.0.
- Last modified
- Whether it needs action now or is a reference record, by fixed rules, with why. Last checked is when cve.now last re-read it.What do these mean? →
- Reference
- Last checked
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 19/100 · provisional
- The share of the registry's downloads of each affected package in the window that were versions inside the affected ranges. Downloads, not users or installs: CI runs and mirrors inflate the counts.
- 28% of @novu/api downloads last week were affected versions (55.6K).npm, 197.3K downloads in the last 7 days, read Nov 9, 2026
- The rating the maker of the software gives it. Shown when it differs from the CVSS level.What do these mean? →
- High (ghsa)
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
Summary
Novu, a notification platform, has a server-side request forgery flaw in its conditions filter webhook, which sends POST requests to user-configured URLs without the private-address checks that its HTTP Request workflow step applies. An attacker who can set a condition's webhook URL could make the server send requests to internal services, and the response data can be read back through the execution details API, which may expose items such as cloud instance credentials.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
Read the original description
The conditions filter webhook at libs/application-generic/src/usecases/conditions-filter/conditions-filter.usecase.ts line 261 sends POST requests to user-configured URLs using raw axios.post() with no SSRF validation. The HTTP Request workflow step in the same codebase correctly uses validateUrlSsrf() which blocks private IP ranges. The conditions webhook was not included in this protection.
Root Cause
conditions-filter.usecase.ts line 261:
return await axios.post(child.webhookUrl, payload, config).then((response) => {
return response.data as Record<string, unknown>;
});No call to validateUrlSsrf(). The webhookUrl comes from the workflow condition configuration with zero validation.
Protected Code (for contrast)
execute-http-request-step.usecase.ts line 130:
const ssrfValidationError = await validateUrlSsrf(url);
if (ssrfValidationError) {
// blocked
}This function resolves DNS and checks against private ranges (127.0.0.0/8, 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16, 169.254.0.0/16). It exists in the codebase but is not applied to the conditions webhook path.
Proof of Concept
- Create a workflow with a condition step
- Configure the condition's webhook URL to
http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/ - Trigger the workflow by sending a notification event
- The worker evaluates the condition and calls
axios.post()to the metadata endpoint - The response data is stored in execution details and accessible via the execution details API
Impact
Full-read SSRF. The response body is returned as Record<string, unknown> for condition evaluation and stored in the execution details raw field. The GET /execution-details API returns this data.
The POST method limits some metadata endpoints (GCP requires GET, Azure requires GET), but AWS IMDSv1 accepts POST and returns credentials. Internal services accepting POST are also reachable.
Suggested Fix
Extract validateUrlSsrf() to a shared utility and call it before the axios.post in conditions-filter.usecase.ts:
const ssrfError = await validateUrlSsrf(child.webhookUrl);
if (ssrfError) {
throw new Error('Webhook URL blocked by SSRF protection');
}
return await axios.post(child.webhookUrl, payload, config)...cve.now Index
- Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
- Exposure?/25Unknown. No advisory context yet
- Reach12/20@novu/api: 191.3K downloads a week
- Severity7/10Rated high by ghsa
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 74 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 69 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
- Would score about 41 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed
Impact
What to do
Upgrade to a fixed version: 3.15.0.
Check your systems with an agent
Paste this into a coding or ops agent. It checks your systems read-only and reports a table per asset.
Check whether my systems are affected by GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F (Novu has SSRF via conditions filter webhook bypasses validateUrlSsrf() protection), using the cve.now data below. Rules: work read-only. Do not run exploit code, proof-of-concept scripts or scanners that send attack payloads, and do not change any configuration, package, image or deployment. Report findings only. What cve.now has for GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F (entry last updated 2026-04-14): Affected: - npm package @novu/api: fixed in 3.15.0 Fixed versions: 3.15.0. Setup: unknown whether the bug needs a non-default feature or setting. Check the advisory. CISA KEV: GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F is not listed as of cve.now's last read. This KEV status is for GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F only. If you also check another CVE, look up its own KEV status; never assume it from this one. How to check: - Packages (npm): find every lockfile in each project and run check_stack from the cve.now MCP server on each one. Compare the resolved versions, not the ranges a manifest declares, with the affected versions above. Include transitive dependencies. Verify against the linked advisories before concluding, and cite the date you read each one: - https://github.com/novuhq/novu/security/advisories/GHSA-4x48-cgf9-q33f - https://github.com/novuhq/novu/commit/87d965eb88340ac7cd262dd52c8015acd092dc68 - https://github.com/novuhq/novu Do not conclude an asset is unaffected unless you checked it and the evidence covers both its version and the conditions above. If you could not check something, mark it unknown and say what is missing. Report a table with one row per asset and these columns: Asset | Version or build | Status (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | Compensating controls | Exposure (internet-facing, internal, none) | Evidence | Next action. Entry: https://cve.now/GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F For follow-up questions, use the cve.now MCP server at https://mcp.cve.now/mcp (no authentication), for example get_vulnerability with id GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F.
Timeline
- Advisory published
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- @novu/apinpm
fixed in 3.15.0
Fixed in 3.15.0 (released Apr 13, 2026, 1 day before disclosure).
The latest release, 3.19.1, is not affected.
Evidence 3
Vendor advisory · 1
Establishes: Affected and fixed versions.
- Advisory
Other links · 2
- Repository
- Repository
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F
Is GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
Which versions are affected by GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F?
@novu/api (npm): before 3.15.0.Source: cve.now feed data
How do I fix GHSA-4X48-CGF9-Q33F?
Upgrade to a fixed version: 3.15.0.Source: cve.now feed data