How severe is GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w?

GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w has a CVSS score of 8.8/10, rated HIGH. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w?

GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w affects the following packages: supervisor (PyPI), supervisor (PyPI), supervisor (PyPI), supervisor (PyPI). Ecosystems affected: PyPI.

How do I fix GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w?

Update supervisor to 3.0.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w in my PyPI dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for supervisor, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

Close the privilege gap rather than the entry point: audit which accounts, roles and service identities can reach the affected operation, drop the component to the least privilege it actually needs, and review file and directory permissions created by earlier installs — a default left in place is what makes this reachable.

Is GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w actively exploited in the wild?

Yes. There are 8 known exploit references for GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w, including 1 documented proof-of-concept exploit on Exploit-DB and 5 in-the-wild exploitations 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-x7c8-4x3h-874w?

GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 87.5%, placing it in the 100th 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. A score above 50% indicates significantly elevated exploitation risk — immediate patching is strongly recommended.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w?

GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w is classified as Incorrect Default Permissions (CWE-276). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

Is there exploit tooling available for GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w?

A Nuclei detection template exists for GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w, meaning automated scanners can fingerprint it. A Metasploit module references GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w, which lowers the barrier to weaponization. Public exploit tooling significantly increases real-world risk — prioritize patching and ensure detection coverage. Exploit tooling should only ever be used in isolated, authorized testing environments.

When was GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w was published on May 13, 2022 and was last updated on October 28, 2024. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐍

🐍 PyPI

Not in CISA KEV

HIGH severity

Incorrect Default Permissions in SupervisorGHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w

HIGH

GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w is a high-severity (CVSS 8.8) Incorrect Default Permissions vulnerability in supervisor. 8 public exploit or proof-of-concept references are indexed, so weaponization risk is real. A fix is available for supervisor — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2017-11610PYSEC-2017-41

Published

May 13, 2022

Updated

Oct 28, 2024

Affected

4 pkgs

Patched

4 / 4

Exploits

8 known

Exploitation data as of Nov 6, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

87.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Very High Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs100th percentile — riskier than 100% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

Where this sits among everything scored

Real-World Exposure

4 pkgs affected

🐍supervisor🐍supervisor🐍supervisor🐍supervisor

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

The XML-RPC server in supervisor before 3.0.1, 3.1.x before 3.1.4, 3.2.x before 3.2.4, and 3.3.x before 3.3.3 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted XML-RPC request, related to nested supervisord namespace lookups.

Affected Packages

4 total 4 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐍PyPI	`supervisor`	all versions	3.0.1`pip install --upgrade 'supervisor==3.0.1'`
🐍PyPI	`supervisor`	≥ 3.1.0&&< 3.1.4	3.1.4`pip install --upgrade 'supervisor==3.1.4'`
🐍PyPI	`supervisor`	≥ 3.2.0&&< 3.2.4	3.2.4`pip install --upgrade 'supervisor==3.2.4'`
🐍PyPI	`supervisor`	≥ 3.3.0&&< 3.3.3	3.3.3`pip install --upgrade 'supervisor==3.3.3'`

Affected Products

4 products · 18 configurations

debian linuxdebian

2 versions

8.09.0

fedorafedoraproject

3 versions

242526

Application

cloudformsredhat

1 version

4.5

Application

supervisorsupervisord

≤ 3.0

11 versions

3.1.03.1.13.1.23.1.33.2.03.2.13.2.23.2.33.3.03.3.13.3.2

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.

EDB-42779remotelinux✓ Verified

Supervisor 3.0a1 < 3.3.2 - XML-RPC (Authenticated) Remote Code Execution (Metasploit)

by Metasploit · Sep 25, 2017

Exploit-DB Source

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for supervisor, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update supervisor to 3.0.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Close the privilege gap rather than the entry point: audit which accounts, roles and service identities can reach the affected operation, drop the component to the least privilege it actually needs, and review file and directory permissions created by earlier installs — a default left in place is what makes this reachable.

How to detect GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w

A community-maintained Nuclei template exists for this CVE. You can scan for it directly:

nuclei -id ghsa-x7c8-4x3h-874w -u https://target

Template: XML-RPC Server - Remote Code Execution
Severity: high
Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the target system.
Remediation: Apply the latest security patches or disable the XML-RPC server if not required.

Template by ProjectDiscovery nuclei-templates (notnotnotveg), MIT licensed. View the full template. Scan only systems you are authorised to test.

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 HatModerate

Product	Fixed in	Advisory
CloudForms Management Engine 5.8	`ansible-tower-0:3.1.5-1.el7at`	RHSA-2017:3005

Frequently Asked Questions

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-x7c8-4x3h-874w in your dependencies?

Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works