GHSA-9m63-33q3-xq5x is a high-severity (CVSS 8.5) CWE-290 vulnerability in github.com/go-vela/server. A fix is available for github.com/go-vela/server — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Vela Server Has Insufficient Webhook Payload Data Verification
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-9m63-33q3-xq5x.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-9m63-33q3-xq5x plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 377,166 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
github.com/go-vela/server🐹github.com/go-vela/serverReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Impact
Users with an enabled repository with access to repo level CI secrets in Vela are vulnerable to the exploit.
Any user with access to the CI instance and the linked source control manager can perform the exploit.
Method
By spoofing a webhook payload with a specific set of headers and body data, an attacker could transfer ownership of a repository and its repo level secrets to a separate repository.
These secrets could be exfiltrated by follow up builds to the repository.
Patches
v0.26.3 — Image: target/vela-server:v0.26.3
v0.25.3 — Image: target/vela-server:v0.25.3
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
There are no workarounds to the issue.
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
Please see linked CWEs (common weakness enumerators) for more information.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐹Go | github.com/go-vela/server | all versions | 0.25.3go get github.com/go-vela/server@v0.25.3 |
| 🐹Go | github.com/go-vela/server | ≥ 0.26.0&&< 0.26.3 | 0.26.3go get github.com/go-vela/server@v0.26.3 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/go-vela/server, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update github.com/go-vela/server to 0.25.3 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-9m63-33q3-xq5x 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 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-9m63-33q3-xq5x can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-9m63-33q3-xq5x. 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-9m63-33q3-xq5x in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-9m63-33q3-xq5x across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.