CVE-2026-84721
Description
A server-side request forgery flaw was found in the Ansible Automation Platform automation-controller email notification backend. The email backend passes the user-supplied SMTP host and port from a notification template directly to the SMTP client without validating that the target is not an internal, loopback, link-local, or reserved address. An authenticated user with organization notification-admin permission can create or modify an email notification template pointing at an arbitrary internal address, trigger a test, and have the controller task process open a raw TCP connection to that address. The resulting connection error is reflected back through the notification record, providing a three-state internal port-scan oracle (open, closed, filtered) over the control-plane's cluster network, including the in-cluster Kubernetes API. When a shared organization template holds a stored SMTP password, redirecting the host can also cause that credential to be transmitted to an attacker-controlled server.
Statement
This flaw is a server-side request forgery weakness in the automation-controller email notification backend: user-supplied SMTP host and port are used to open a raw TCP connection from the controller task process without validating that the destination is external, and the connection outcome is reflected back as an internal port-scan oracle. The HTTP notification backends were hardened against SSRF; the email and IRC backends were not. The correct fix validates the connect target for every notification backend regardless of transport (ideally centralized in the template send path) and rejects private, loopback, link-local, and reserved destinations. Red Hat notes the SSRF connect-target validation should be present on all maintained streams, as it currently exists only on the 2.7 branch.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 6.4 | N/A | 6.4 |
| Attack Vector | Network | N/A | Network |
| Attack Complexity | Low | N/A | Low |
| Privileges Required | Low | N/A | Low |
| User Interaction | None | N/A | None |
| Scope | Changed | N/A | Changed |
| Confidentiality | Low | N/A | Low |
| Integrity Impact | Low | N/A | Low |
| Availability Impact | None | N/A | None |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality
Technical Impact: Read Application Data
Integrity
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Access Control
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
By providing URLs to unexpected hosts or ports, attackers can make it appear that the server is sending the request, possibly bypassing access controls such as firewalls that prevent the attackers from accessing the URLs directly. The server can be used as a proxy to conduct port scanning of hosts in internal networks, use other URLs such as that can access documents on the system (using file://), or use other protocols such as gopher:// or tftp://, which may provide greater control over the contents of requests.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
