How severe is GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp?

GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp has a CVSS score of 6.5/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp?

GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp affects the following packages: taipy (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp?

Update taipy to 4.0.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for taipy. 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-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp 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-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp 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-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp actively exploited in the wild?

Yes. There are 1 known exploit references for GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp, including 1 in-the-wild exploitation observed on GitHub and other sources. Treat this as actively exploitable and prioritize patching immediately. All exploit code should only be run in an isolated sandbox environment for research or authorized testing — never against production systems without explicit written authorization.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp?

GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.2%, placing it in the 16th 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.

When was GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp was published on August 27, 2024 and was last updated on January 21, 2025. 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-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp

MEDIUM

Taipy has a Session Cookie without Secure and HTTPOnly flags

Also known asCVE-2024-47833PYSEC-2024-168

Published

Aug 27, 2024

Updated

Jan 21, 2025

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

1 known

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk16th percentile+0.16%

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

🐍taipy

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

Session cookie is without Secure and HTTPOnly flags.

Details

Please take a look at this part of code (PoC screenshot) or check code directly (provided in Occurrences section below)

Occurrences: https://github.com/Avaiga/taipy/blob/develop/frontend/taipy-gui/src/components/Taipy/Navigate.tsx#L67

Proposed remediation: add Secure and HTTPOnly flags for cookies.

It could be like this: document.cookie = tprh=${tprh};path=/;Secure;HttpOnly;;

PoC

Screenshot:

Impact

Secure: This flag indicates that the cookie should only be sent over secure HTTPS connections. Without this flag, the cookie will be sent over both HTTP and HTTPS connections, which could expose it to interception or tampering if the connection is not secure. HttpOnly: This flag prevents the cookie from being accessed by client-side JavaScript. It helps mitigate certain types of attacks, such as cross-site scripting (XSS), by preventing malicious scripts from accessing the cookie's value.

References CWE-614: Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/614.html CWE-1004: Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag - https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1004.html OWASP - Secure Cookie Attribute - https://owasp.org/www-community/controls/SecureCookieAttribute Cookie security flags - https://www.invicti.com/learn/cookie-security-flags/ Cookie lack Secure flag - https://support.detectify.com/support/solutions/articles/48001048982-cookie-lack-secure-flag

Other: Title: Encrypting the Web URL: https://www.eff.org/encrypt-the-web

Update (Required advisory information) - added severity, resource: https://portswigger.net/kb/issues/00500200_tls-cookie-without-secure-flag-set

Best regards,

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`taipy`	all versions	4.0.0

Exploits & PoCs

Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.

Taipy is an open-source Python library for easy, end-to-end application …

github.comNVDOct 2024

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for taipy. 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 taipy to 4.0.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp 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-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp 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-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Summary Session cookie is without Secure and HTTPOnly flags. ### Details Please take a look at this part of code (PoC screenshot) or check code directly (provided in Occurrences section below) **Occurrences**: https://github.com/Avaiga/taipy/blob/develop/frontend/taipy-gui/src/components/Taipy/Navigate.tsx#L67 **Proposed remediation:** add Secure and HTTPOnly flags for cookies. It could be like this: document.cookie = `tprh=${tprh};path=/;Secure;HttpOnly;`; ### PoC **Screenshot**: ![image](https://github.com/Avaiga/taipy/assets/18367606/ea7d1bbd-ba27-447f-932b-3d33ffc1a2e7) ### Imp

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-r3jq-4r5c-j9hp 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