CVE-2026-102102

CVE Enrichment

CVSS: 9.1 CRITICAL
EPSS: 0.81%
EPSS Percentile: 55.81%
CISA KEV: Not listed

Description

Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway before version 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). A server-side request forgery (SSRF) weakness in Kiteworks Email Protection Gateway could allow a remote, unauthenticated attacker to induce the gateway to issue crafted requests to internal or otherwise unintended network destinations. The requests are triggered while the gateway retrieves an issuer certificate in an inbound message. Depending on the services reachable from the gateway, this could disclose sensitive internal information or disrupt gateway operation.

Technical Details

CVSS Version: 3.1
CNA / NVD Source: 9119a7d8-5eab-497f-8521-727c672e3725
Published: 01-Oct-2026 04:16
Last Modified: 08-Oct-2026 20:43
EPSS Date: 2026-10-11
CWE: CWE-918

CVSS Vector


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

Affected Products / Versions

accellion / kiteworks
Version / affected range: * · before (exclusive) 9.5.0
cpe:2.3:a:accellion:kiteworks:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

References

Last enrichment sync: 12-Oct-2026 06:51
Sources: NVD · FIRST EPSS · CISA KEV
Latest successful provider update; providers refresh independently.

Reported Context (1)

through CVE-2026-100793 (Mozilla Firefox), CVE-2026-54154, CVE-2026-102147, CVE-2026-102149, CVE-2026-102102, CVE-2026-102103, CVE-2026-102104, CVE-2026-102105, CVE-2026-102106, CVE-2026-102115, Weekly Security Recap: Exploited Citrix NetScaler Flaw and Dozens of Vulnerabilities

CVE (135)

Vendors (1)

Products (2)

Note: Related entities, including threat actors, malware, CVEs, MITRE ATT&CK techniques, vendors, products, tools, countries, and industries, are shown when they appear in the same reporting. Their presence does not necessarily mean they were targeted, compromised, vulnerable, responsible for the activity, or directly involved in the incident.