CVE-2026-0258 is a server-side request forgery flaw (CVSS 9.1 in the record) in the IKEv2 code of Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS. An unauthenticated attacker can make the firewall send requests to unintended places, or cause denial of service. Upgrade PAN-OS to the fixed release for your branch.
What's affected
From the vendor advisory, PAN-OS is affected before these releases:
- PAN-OS 12.1: 12.1.4-h5 or 12.1.7 and later
- PAN-OS 11.2: 11.2.4-h17, 11.2.7-h13, 11.2.10-h6 or 11.2.12 and later
- PAN-OS 11.1: 11.1.4-h33, 11.1.6-h32, 11.1.7-h6, 11.1.10-h25, 11.1.13-h5 or 11.1.15 and later
- PAN-OS 10.2: 10.2.7-h34, 10.2.10-h36, 10.2.13-h21, 10.2.16-h7 or 10.2.18-h6 and later
Panorama, Cloud NGFW and Prisma Access are not impacted. Exposure requires a Site to Site VPN gateway with IKEv2 configured. The advisory also says older, unsupported PAN-OS versions should move to a supported fixed version.
The record also lists the Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 as an affected product, with a Siemens advisory (SSA-967325) linked. Check that advisory if you run it.
How to check if you're exposed
On the firewall CLI:
show system info | match sw-version
Compare the result with the fixed releases above for your branch.
Then check whether an IKEv2 gateway exists. The vendor points to its documentation for finding Site to Site VPN gateways configured with IKEv2. If none is configured, the stated condition for exposure is not met.
What to do now
- Upgrade to the fixed release for your PAN-OS branch from the list above.
- If you do not need IKEv2 VPN, remove all IKEv2 VPN gateway configurations. This is the vendor workaround.
- With a Threat Prevention subscription, enable Threat ID 510014 (content version 9100-10044 or later) to block attacks.
- Check Siemens RUGGEDCOM APE1808 units against the Siemens advisory.
- Review firewall logs for unexpected outbound requests from the management or data plane.
Plan the upgrade as you would any firewall change. Pick the fixed release that matches your current maintenance train, since the advisory lists a separate minimum for each one. Hotfix builds carry an h suffix, so a version such as 11.2.7-h13 is newer than 11.2.7 and counts as fixed once it reaches the listed number.
If the firewalls run as a high availability pair, upgrade the passive unit first, check that it takes traffic, then move to the active one. Keep a saved configuration backup before you start, and read the release notes for the target version for any behaviour changes.
If you removed IKEv2 gateways as a workaround, confirm that no site depends on them, and write the change into your VPN inventory. Where a partner connects to you over IKEv2, tell them before you switch the gateway off.
After upgrading, check that Site to Site tunnels come up cleanly and that certificate based peers still authenticate. Fetching peer certificates by URL is the feature at the centre of this CVE, so a tunnel that uses it deserves a test after the change.
Why it matters
The weakness is CWE-918 (server-side request forgery). In IKEv2, a peer can point to a URL where its certificate can be fetched. If the device fetches whatever URL it is given, an outsider can use the firewall to reach destinations it should not, including internal ones.
The vendor rates the severity as medium, with a threat adjusted score of 4.8 and a base score of 8.3 on CVSS 4.0, and says it is not aware of malicious exploitation. The NVD score of 9.1 uses CVSS 3.1 and looks higher. Use the vendor guidance on exposure to set urgency, and note the record does not mark it as KEV.
SSRF bugs are sometimes judged by what they can fetch. On a firewall the interesting part is the position of the device. It can reach management networks, internal services and addresses that an outside host cannot. If it can be made to send requests on an outsider's behalf, those places become reachable indirectly.
The advisory also mentions a denial of service outcome, which is why the integrity and availability scores are high while confidentiality is low. That pattern fits a flaw where the main harm is what the device does, rather than what it reveals.
Scores differ across sources here, and it is worth understanding why. The vendor weights the lack of known exploitation and the specific configuration needed, and lands at medium. The NVD record uses an older scoring system with fewer of those adjustments, and lands at critical. Neither is wrong. Together they tell you that the bug is real, the exposure is narrow, and a planned upgrade is the right pace unless you see signs of abuse.
Quick check
Does this affect Prisma Access?
No. The advisory says Panorama, Cloud NGFW and Prisma Access are not impacted.
What is the simplest mitigation?
Remove IKEv2 VPN gateway configurations if you do not need them, or enable the Threat Prevention signature, then upgrade.
Why do the scores differ so much?
The vendor rates it medium with a base score of 8.3 and a threat adjusted score of 4.8, while NVD shows 9.1 on an older scale. Both come from real inputs.
If you want a quick look at your own dependencies, the free in-browser scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan needs no repository access.
Sources
Fetched for this guide:
Also referenced by the CVE record:
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
