The Symfony FrameworkBundle framework.trusted_proxies option and the HttpFoundation Request::setTrustedProxies() method trust remote clients as reverse proxies when the private_ranges shortcut is used, allowing remote attackers to spoof the client IP address, host and scheme in Symfony FrameworkBundle versions 7.1 prior to 7.4.23 and 8.x prior to 8.1.11, and HttpFoundation versions 7.2 prior to 7.4.23 and 8.x prior to 8.1.11. The private_ranges and PRIVATE_SUBNETS keywords resolved to IpUtils::PRIVATE_SUBNETS, the deny list of NoPrivateNetworkHttpClient, which lists the private and special-purpose prefixes a server must not connect to. Since the fix for CVE-2026-48736 (7.4.13 and 8.0.13), this list also covers the IPv6 prefixes that embed an IPv4 address: IPv4-mapped (::ffff:0:0/96), IPv4-compatible (::/96), 6to4 (2002::/16), Teredo (2001::/32) and NAT64 (64:ff9b::/96). The IPv4-mapped entry has been in the list since the private_ranges shortcut was introduced, in 7.1 for framework.trusted_proxies and in 7.2 for Request::setTrustedProxies(). Over-blocking is safe for a deny list, but when the same entries are used as the allow list of trusted proxies, they trust remote clients. A client whose connection arrives with such a source address is treated as a reverse proxy, and the X-Forwarded-For, X-Forwarded-Host, X-Forwarded-Proto, X-Forwarded-Port and X-Forwarded-Prefix headers it sends are honoured. For example, with Request::setTrustedProxies(['private_ranges'], ...), a request with REMOTE_ADDR set to ::ffff:203.0.113.7 and the headers X-Forwarded-For: 10.0.0.9, X-Forwarded-Host: evil.example.com and X-Forwarded-Proto: https makes getClientIp() return 10.0.0.9, getHost() return evil.example.com and isSecure() return true. Two kinds of deployments are exposed: a server listening on the IPv6 wildcard address without IPV6_V6ONLY reports every IPv4 client in the IPv4-mapped form, so every client is trusted, and a server reachable over IPv6 trusts any client sourcing from 6to4 or Teredo space, which is globally routed, whatever its listener. A spoofed client address defeats IP allow lists, rate limiting and audit logs; a spoofed host poisons the URLs written into password reset and login link e-mails and into shared caches; a spoofed scheme satisfies requires_channel: https over plain HTTP. Symfony 6.4 does not point any trusted proxy setting at IpUtils::PRIVATE_SUBNETS and is not affected by default, but an application that passes that constant to Request::setTrustedProxies() itself could be exposed in the same way on any version. This issue is fixed in 7.4.23 and 8.1.11.
CVE-2026-121619
This medium-severity CVE scores 6.3 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit-prediction score not yet available (the EPSS model rescores nightly; freshly-published CVEs typically appear within 48 hours). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.
Also known asEUVD-2026-124613 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-4mg4-f476-cjh5 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD
- Lower severity and no public exploit yet
The CVE record names the fixed release — apply it.
- CVSS
- 6.3
- EG Score
- 6.3MEDIUMlow confidence
- EG Risk
- 28EG Risk 28/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity63% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 6.3 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation0% × 40%No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at every mission impact level.Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines. - EPSS PROB
- —
- EPSS %ILE
- —
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (6.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 6.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 6.3 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source
- EG Likelihood
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- 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.
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from 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's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact partial (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact neither High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” 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
Published
November 12, 2026
Last Modified
November 12, 2026
References (2)
Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-121619(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(2)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 3× in last 7d / 3× in last 30d)
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed its CVE.org record (CNA or CISA ADP). An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). "EchelonGraph re-scored" is our own recompute of this CVE's score, not an update from a source, and is not counted in the refreshes above. Most recent first.
- 2026-11-12 23:22 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-4mg4-f476-cjh5 · GitHub severity MODERATE
- 2026-11-12 19:31 UTCEchelonGraph re-scored
- 2026-11-12 19:01 UTCENISA EUVD ID recordedEUVD-2026-124613 · Source: ENISA EUVD
- 2026-11-12 18:48 UTCEchelonGraph re-scoredFirst assessed: 6.3 MEDIUM
- 2026-11-12 18:46 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Frequently asked(4)
What is CVE-2026-121619?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-121619 published?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-121619?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-121619?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-121619
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-121619?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.