GHSA-pxrr-hq57-q35p is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) Code Injection vulnerability in dynaconf. A fix is available for dynaconf — see the affected versions and patch details below.
dynaconf Affected by Remote Code Execution (RCE) via Insecure Template Evaluation in @jinja Resolver
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.
- A successful exploit gives an attacker total control of the affected component, not partial access.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-pxrr-hq57-q35p.
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-pxrr-hq57-q35p 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 376,715 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
dynaconfReal-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
Dynaconf is vulnerable to Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) due to unsafe template evaluation in the @jinja resolver. When the jinja2 package is installed, Dynaconf evaluates template expressions embedded in configuration values without a sandboxed environment.
If an attacker can influence configuration sources such as: environment variables .env files container environment configuration CI/CD secrets they can execute arbitrary OS commands on the host system. In addition, the @format resolver allows object graph traversal, which may expose sensitive runtime objects and environment variables.
Details
The vulnerability arises because Dynaconf's string resolvers lack proper security boundaries.
- @jinja Resolver The @jinja resolver renders templates using full Jinja2 evaluation. However, the rendering context is not sandboxed, which allows attackers to access Python's internal attributes. Using objects such as cycler, attackers can reach Python's globals and import the os module.
Example attack path cycler → init → globals → os → popen() This leads to arbitrary command execution.
- @format Resolver The @format resolver performs Python string formatting using internal objects. This allows attackers to traverse Python's object graph and access sensitive runtime objects. Example traversal: {this.class.init.globals[os].environ} This can expose
- API keys
- database credentials
- internal service tokens
- environment secrets
PoC
import os
from dynaconf import Dynaconf
# Malicious configuration injection
os.environ["DYNACONF_RCE"] = "@jinja {{ cycler.__init__.__globals__.os.popen('id').read() }}"
settings = Dynaconf()
print("[!] Command Execution Result:")
print(settings.RCE)
Impact
Successful exploitation allows attackers to:
- Execute arbitrary OS commands on the host system
- Access sensitive environment variables
- Compromise application secrets
- Fully compromise the running application process Because configuration values may originate from CI/CD pipelines, container orchestration systems, or environment injection, this vulnerability can become remotely exploitable in real-world deployments.
Remediation / Mitigation (Examples)
- Use Jinja2 sandbox for template rendering
from jinja2.sandbox import SandboxedEnvironment
env = SandboxedEnvironment()
template = env.from_string("{{ config_value }}")
safe_value = template.render(config_value=user_input)```
- Restrict @format usage to trusted values
safe_value = "{name}".format(name=trusted_name)
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | dynaconf | all versions | 3.2.13pip install --upgrade 'dynaconf==3.2.13' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for dynaconf, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update dynaconf to 3.2.13 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-pxrr-hq57-q35p 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-pxrr-hq57-q35p can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-pxrr-hq57-q35p. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
Red Hat products using dynaconf with the jinja2 package installed, such as Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform and Red Hat Satellite, are affected. An attacker with low privileges could achieve arbitrary code execution by injecting malicious template expressions into configuration values. This is due to unsafe…
| Product | Fixed in | Advisory |
|---|---|---|
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 for RHEL 9 | automation-controller-0:4.7.13-2.el9ap | RHSA-2026:34160 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.5 | ansible-automation-platform-25/lightspeed-rhel8:1777403872 | RHSA-2026:13553 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/eda-controller-rhel9:1777296732 | RHSA-2026:13545 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9:1779762270 | RHSA-2026:24866 |
| Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.6 | ansible-automation-platform-26/controller-rhel9:1782766803 | RHSA-2026:34374 |
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-pxrr-hq57-q35p in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-pxrr-hq57-q35p across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.