How severe is GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j?

GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j affects the following packages: kas (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j?

Update kas to 5.3 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for kas, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

Is GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j?

GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.3%, placing it in the 16th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j?

GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j is classified as CWE-347 (CWE-347). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j was published on June 4, 2026 and was last updated on August 15, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐍 PyPI

Not in CISA KEV

kas's late signature validation may allow unnoticed repository manipulationsGHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j

Fix: siemens/kas@4cb4a3d

GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j is a CWE-347 vulnerability in kas. A fix is available for kas — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-47192PYSEC-2026-2543

Published

Jun 4, 2026

Updated

Aug 15, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Oct 17, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs16th percentile — riskier than 16% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐍kas

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

So far, kas checks out and processes repositories regarding configuration includes prior to validating signatures of those repositories. This may allow to replace on original repository with one under the control of an attacker under very specific conditions.

First of all, the attacker must have gained control of a repository that a kas file of the victim is referencing. Furthermore, the following conditions must be fulfilled:

the victim's kas configuration must include a configuration file from the attacked repository
the repository state is referenced by tag, and no commit ID is specified (this is triggering a warning, though)
the key used for validating the tag or commit signature is stored as file in a repository
no fingerprint for the key is specified
the _source_dir key must not be set by the victim when calling kas (e.g. by avoiding a local .config.yaml)

Given these conditions, the attacker could modify the included kas configuration in way that the key used to validate the tag signature of the attacker's repository could be replaced by an attacker-chosen key.

No other exploit possibilities have been identified so far, but this does not rule out that those may exist.

Patches

The vulnerability was introduced with a2480fe59b6421eb96cf3bd86527ae6e412a331e, commit https://github.com/siemens/kas/commit/5b2114becfc154b16ef496d24f8c2191a2297f57 is resolving this issue. A misuse of _source_dir is resolved by commit https://github.com/siemens/kas/commit/c443c0a1fd0f9bd6a689a44d95a252085fc6da88. Shadowing a commit by a branch of the same name is described in advisory https://github.com/siemens/kas/security/advisories/GHSA-qjwp-hrq6-r26r and is addressed by commit https://github.com/siemens/kas/commit/4cb4a3d01122ffaec9feaae768a5814092f6f9b5. All patches have been released along with kas version 5.3.

Workarounds

Pin the expected signature key via its fingerprint, also when storing it as file in a repository.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`kas`	≥ 4.8&&< 5.3	5.3`pip install --upgrade 'kas==5.3'`

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for kas, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update kas to 5.3 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact So far, kas checks out and processes repositories regarding configuration includes prior to validating signatures of those repositories. This may allow to replace on original repository with one under the control of an attacker under very specific conditions. First of all, the attacker must have gained control of a repository that a kas file of the victim is referencing. Furthermore, the following conditions must be fulfilled: - the victim's kas configuration must include a configuration file from the attacked repository - the repository state is referenced by tag, and no commit

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-4vqc-wpwg-vh7j in your dependencies?

Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works