How severe is GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv?

GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv affects the following packages: openssl-encrypt (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv?

Update openssl-encrypt to 1.4.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv in my PyPI dependencies?

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

How do I mitigate GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv 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.

How does O3 Security protect against GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv?

O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Is GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv 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-c65f-x25w-62jv?

GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.3%, placing it in the 17th 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-c65f-x25w-62jv?

GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv is classified as CWE-942 (CWE-942). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv was published on April 1, 2026 and was last updated on September 11, 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

GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv — openssl-encrypt

Fix: jahlives/openssl_encrypt@809416b

GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv is a CWE-942 vulnerability in openssl-encrypt. A fix is available for openssl-encrypt — see the affected versions and patch details below.

openssl-encrypt has CORS wildcard with allow_credentials=True in standalone servers

Also known asCVE-2026-74881PYSEC-2026-3977

Published

Apr 1, 2026

Updated

Sep 11, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Sep 22, 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-c65f-x25w-62jv.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs17th percentile — riskier than 17% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

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.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐍openssl-encrypt

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

Summary

Both standalone servers configure CORS with allow_origins=["*"], allow_credentials=True, allow_methods=["*"], and allow_headers=["*"].

Affected Code

# server/key-server/app/main.py:86-92
# server/telemetry-server/app/main.py:23-29
app.add_middleware(
    CORSMiddleware,
    allow_origins=settings.cors_origins,  # defaults to ["*"]
    allow_credentials=True,
    allow_methods=["*"],
    allow_headers=["*"],
)

The docker-compose file (openssl_encrypt_server/docker-compose.yml:75) also defaults CORS_ORIGINS to *, and .env.example ships with CORS_ORIGINS=*.

Impact

This is the most permissive CORS configuration possible, allowing any website to make fully credentialed cross-origin requests to the API. An attacker's website could make authenticated API calls on behalf of any user who visits it.

Recommended Fix

Remove wildcard defaults — require explicit origin configuration
Never combine allow_origins=["*"] with allow_credentials=True
Update .env.example with placeholder domains instead of *

Fix

Fixed in commit 809416b on branch releases/1.4.x — changed CORS default from ["*"] to [] in both key-server and telemetry-server; added validation rejecting wildcard when debug=False.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`openssl-encrypt`	all versions	1.4.0`pip install --upgrade 'openssl-encrypt==1.4.0'`

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for openssl-encrypt, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update openssl-encrypt to 1.4.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv 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-c65f-x25w-62jv can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary Both standalone servers configure CORS with `allow_origins=["*"]`, `allow_credentials=True`, `allow_methods=["*"]`, and `allow_headers=["*"]`. ### Affected Code ```python # server/key-server/app/main.py:86-92 # server/telemetry-server/app/main.py:23-29 app.add_middleware( CORSMiddleware, allow_origins=settings.cors_origins, # defaults to ["*"] allow_credentials=True, allow_methods=["*"], allow_headers=["*"], ) ``` The docker-compose file (`openssl_encrypt_server/docker-compose.yml:75`) also defaults `CORS_ORIGINS` to `*`, and `.env.example` ships with `CORS

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-c65f-x25w-62jv across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works