GHSA-cf9f-wmhp-v4pr is a high-severity (CVSS 7.1) Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in nautobot. A fix is available for nautobot — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Cross-site Scripting potential in custom links, job buttons, and computed fields
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-cf9f-wmhp-v4pr 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
nautobot🐍nautobotReal-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
All users of Nautobot versions earlier than 1.6.6 or 2.0.5 are potentially affected.
Due to incorrect usage of Django's mark_safe() API when rendering certain types of user-authored content, including:
- custom links
- job buttons
- computed fields
it is possible that users with permission to create or edit these types of content could craft a malicious payload (such as JavaScript code) that would be executed when rendering pages containing this content.
Patches
Has the problem been patched? What versions should users upgrade to?
We have fixed the incorrect uses of mark_safe() (generally by replacing them with appropriate use of format_html() instead) to prevent such malicious data from being executed.
Users on Nautobot 1.6.x LTM should upgrade to v1.6.6 and users on Nautobot 2.0.x should upgrade to v2.0.5.
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
Appropriate object permissions can and should be applied to restrict which users are permitted to create or edit the aforementioned types of user-authored content. Other than that, there is no direct fix available.
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | nautobot | all versions | 1.6.6pip install --upgrade 'nautobot==1.6.6' |
| 🐍PyPI | nautobot | ≥ 2.0.0&&< 2.0.5 | 2.0.5pip install --upgrade 'nautobot==2.0.5' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for nautobot, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update nautobot to 1.6.6 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-cf9f-wmhp-v4pr 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-cf9f-wmhp-v4pr can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-cf9f-wmhp-v4pr. 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-cf9f-wmhp-v4pr in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-cf9f-wmhp-v4pr across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.