How severe is GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v?

GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v affects the following packages: guarddog (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v?

Update guarddog to 2.7.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for guarddog. 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v?

GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.4%, placing it in the 34th 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v?

GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v is classified as CWE-409 (CWE-409). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v was published on January 13, 2026 and was last updated on February 3, 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v

GuardDog Zip Bomb Vulnerability in safe_extract() Allows DoS

Also known asCVE-2026-22870

Published

Jan 13, 2026

Updated

Feb 3, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.4%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk34th percentile+0.38%

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.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected

🐍guarddog

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

GuardDog's safe_extract() function does not validate decompressed file sizes when extracting ZIP archives (wheels, eggs), allowing attackers to cause denial of service through zip bombs. A malicious package can consume gigabytes of disk space from a few megabytes of compressed data.

Vulnerability Details

Affected Component: guarddog/utils/archives.py - safe_extract() function
Vulnerability Type: CWE-409 - Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Zip Bomb)
Severity: HIGH (CVSS ~8)
Attack Vector: Network (malicious package uploaded to PyPI/npm) or local

Root Cause

The safe_extract() function handles TAR files securely using the tarsafe library, but ZIP file extraction has no size validation:

elif zipfile.is_zipfile(source_archive):
    with zipfile.ZipFile(source_archive, "r") as zip:
        for file in zip.namelist():
            zip.extract(file, path=os.path.join(target_directory, file))

Missing protections:

❌ No decompressed size limit
❌ No compression ratio validation
❌ No file count limits
❌ No total extracted size validation

Impact

Denial of Service Scenarios

1. CI/CD Pipeline Disruption

Attacker publishes malicious package to PyPI
Developer adds package to requirements.txt
CI/CD runs GuardDog scan
Disk fills (GitHub Actions: standard 14GB limit)
All deployments blocked

2. Resource Exhaustion

Local development environments
Security scanning infrastructure
Automated scanning systems
Docker containers with limited disk

3. Supply Chain Attack Amplification

Single malicious package blocks security scanning
Prevents detection of other malicious packages
Forces manual intervention
Increases security team workload

Recommended Fix

Add size validation for ZIP files similar to what tarsafe provides for TAR files

Configuration Options

Make limits configurable via environment variables or config file

Additional Improvements

Add warning logs when archives approach limits
Provide clear error messages for users
Document limits in user-facing documentation
Add tests for zip bomb detection
Consider using a safe ZIP library (similar to tarsafe)

Credit

Reported by: Charbel (dwbruijn)

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`guarddog`	all versions	2.7.1

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for guarddog. 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 guarddog to 2.7.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v 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-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary GuardDog's `safe_extract()` function does not validate decompressed file sizes when extracting ZIP archives (wheels, eggs), allowing attackers to cause denial of service through zip bombs. A malicious package can consume gigabytes of disk space from a few megabytes of compressed data. ## Vulnerability Details **Affected Component:** `guarddog/utils/archives.py` - `safe_extract()` function **Vulnerability Type:** CWE-409 - Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Zip Bomb) **Severity:** HIGH (CVSS ~8) **Attack Vector:** Network (malicious package uploaded to PyPI/npm) or

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-ffj4-jq7m-9g6v 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