GHSA-mcvf-jxcw-vj73 — ckan
MEDIUMGHSA-mcvf-jxcw-vj73 is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.1) Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ckan. A fix is available for ckan — see the affected versions and patch details below.
CKAN has CSRF exemption primed by anonymous requests
Exploitation Status
Proof-of-concept exploit code exists
- CISA’s SSVC triage found public proof-of-concept exploit code for this CVE, though no confirmed active exploitation.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-mcvf-jxcw-vj73.
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-mcvf-jxcw-vj73 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
ckan🐍ckanReal-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
Views can be marked as exempt from CSRF protection
Access to the views via tokens or unauthenticated requests marked the endpoint as not requiring CSRF protection.
The marking was a member variable in flask-wtf.csrf.CSRFProtect(), which was stored as a module level variable in the flask_app middleware. Thsi API was never intended for request level changes, it is primarily a decorator for static configuration.
An unauthenticated request could hit a protected endpoint, exempting it from CSRF protection for the life of the particular server process. (e.g. one worker of uwsgi).
This could be leveraged with XSS to perform actions using other user's credentials.
References
- Vulnerability report by @Shirshaw64p (original reporter)
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | ckan | ≥ 2.10.0&&< 2.10.10 | 2.10.10pip install --upgrade 'ckan==2.10.10' |
| 🐍PyPI | ckan | ≥ 2.11.0&&< 2.11.5 | 2.11.5pip install --upgrade 'ckan==2.11.5' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for ckan, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update ckan to 2.10.10 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-mcvf-jxcw-vj73 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-mcvf-jxcw-vj73 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-mcvf-jxcw-vj73. 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-mcvf-jxcw-vj73 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-mcvf-jxcw-vj73 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.