How severe is GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc?

GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc has a CVSS score of 8.5/10, rated HIGH. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc?

GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc affects the following packages: flyto-core (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc?

Update flyto-core to 2.26.7 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for flyto-core. 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.

How do I mitigate GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc 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-c9hr-64h3-gxpc?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc 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 type of vulnerability is GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc?

GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc is classified as Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (CWE-918). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation. This is a high-impact weakness class that often enables remote code execution or data exposure.

When was GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc was published on July 30, 2026 and was last updated on July 30, 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

GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc

HIGH

GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc is a high-severity (CVSS 8.5) Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in flyto-core. O3 Security confirms whether GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc is actually reachable in your code before you act, and blocks exploitation at runtime until you patch.

Flyto2 Core: Guarded HTTP modules follow redirects into internal space without per-hop SSRF revalidation

Also known asCVE-2026-67424

Published

Jul 30, 2026

Updated

Jul 30, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected

🐍flyto-core

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

The HTTP modules that DO call the SSRF guard (http.get, http.request, http.batch) validate only the initial URL, then issue the request with aiohttp's default allow_redirects=True and perform no per-hop revalidation. An attacker hosts a public URL that 302-redirects to an internal address; the guard passes on the public host and aiohttp transparently follows the redirect into internal space, returning the internal body.

Root Cause

src/core/modules/atomic/http/get.py:116 calls session.get(url, ...) with no allow_redirects argument → aiohttp default True. request.py:60 sets allow_redirects=follow_redirects (default True at :327); batch.py:57 likewise. A repo grep of http/ for on_request_redirect / response.history returns NONE — there is no redirect interception or Location revalidation.

Impact

Full readable SSRF that defeats the primary SSRF control on the very modules that correctly validate. Confidentiality of internal/metadata responses (C:H), S:C.

Proof of Concept

Verified live: http.get with allowlisted base 127.0.0.1 followed a 302 Location: http://127.0.0.2/... (non-allowlisted) and returned INTERNAL-VIA-REDIRECT.

attacker hosts http://attacker.tld/r  ->  302 Location: http://<cloud-metadata-ip>/latest/meta-data/...
execute_module http.get {"url":"http://attacker.tld/r"}

Attack Chain

Entry: execute_module http.get {url:"http://attacker.tld/r"} (attacker 302->internal). Guard: validate_url_with_env_config(url) (get.py:104). Bypass proof: validation runs on attacker.tld (public) → passes; never re-run on the redirect target.
Sink: session.get(url) (get.py:116) — no allow_redirects arg → aiohttp default True. Bypass proof: grep of http/ for on_request_redirect/response.history → NONE.
Impact: aiohttp follows 302 to the internal host; internal body returned (get.py:118).

Bypass Evidence

Live PoC followed a 302 into non-allowlisted loopback and returned the internal marker string. aiohttp ClientSession.get default allow_redirects=True; module never sets it False; no per-hop revalidation exists.

Affected Versions

<= 2.26.6 — get.py:116, request.py:60, batch.py:57 present on latest release tag.

Suggested Fix

Set allow_redirects=False and manually revalidate each Location header through validate_url_with_env_config before following, or cap and re-check every hop.

Credit

Vulnerability discovered by zx (Jace).

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`flyto-core`	all versions	2.26.7

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for flyto-core. 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 flyto-core to 2.26.7 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc 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-c9hr-64h3-gxpc 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-c9hr-64h3-gxpc. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary The HTTP modules that DO call the SSRF guard (`http.get`, `http.request`, `http.batch`) validate only the initial URL, then issue the request with aiohttp's default `allow_redirects=True` and perform no per-hop revalidation. An attacker hosts a public URL that 302-redirects to an internal address; the guard passes on the public host and aiohttp transparently follows the redirect into internal space, returning the internal body. ## Root Cause `src/core/modules/atomic/http/get.py:116` calls `session.get(url, ...)` with no `allow_redirects` argument → aiohttp default `True`. `request.

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-c9hr-64h3-gxpc across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works