How severe is GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj?

GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj affects the following packages: rpyc (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj?

Update rpyc to 4.1.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj in my PyPI dependencies?

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

How do I mitigate GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj 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-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj actively exploited in the wild?

Yes. There are 2 known exploit references for GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj, including 2 in-the-wild exploitations observed on GitHub and other sources. Treat this as actively exploitable and prioritize patching immediately. All exploit code should only be run in an isolated sandbox environment for research or authorized testing — never against production systems without explicit written authorization.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj?

GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 13.0%, placing it in the 96th 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 warrants monitoring and prompt remediation.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj?

GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj is classified as CWE-1321 (CWE-1321). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj was published on November 20, 2019 and was last updated on December 6, 2024. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

Withdrawn — this advisory has been retracted

🐍 PyPI

Not in CISA KEV

Duplicate Advisory: Possible remote code execution via a remote procedure callGHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj

GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj is a CWE-1321 vulnerability in rpyc. 2 public exploit or proof-of-concept references are indexed, so weaponization risk is real. A fix is available for rpyc — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2019-16328 GHSA-pj4g-4488-wmxmPYSEC-2019-118

Published

Nov 20, 2019

Updated

Dec 6, 2024

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

2 known

Exploitation data as of Nov 10, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

13.0%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Moderate Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs96th percentile — riskier than 96% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

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

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐍rpyc

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

Withdrawn: duplicate of GHSA-pj4g-4488-wmxm

Original Description

In RPyC 4.1.x through 4.1.1, a remote attacker can dynamically modify object attributes to construct a remote procedure call that executes code for an RPyC service with default configuration settings.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`rpyc`	≥ 4.1.0&&< 4.1.2	4.1.2`pip install --upgrade 'rpyc==4.1.2'`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

rpycrpyc_project

≥ 4.1.0 && ≤ 4.1.1

range

Exploits & PoCs

Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.

In RPyC 4.1.x through 4.1.1, a remote attacker can dynamically modify ob…

rpyc.readthedocs.ioNVDAug 2020

Report on github.com

github.comMetasploitMar 2023

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for rpyc, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update rpyc to 4.1.2 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-9ggp-4jpr-7ppj 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

Withdrawn: duplicate of GHSA-pj4g-4488-wmxm ## Original Description In RPyC 4.1.x through 4.1.1, a remote attacker can dynamically modify object attributes to construct a remote procedure call that executes code for an RPyC service with default configuration settings.