GHSA-PGWH-4JJ4-QM8V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-30 14:48 – Updated: 2026-07-30 14:48Summary
Numerous HTTP-emitting modules (core.api.http_get, core.api.http_post, graphql.query/graphql.mutation, monitor.http_check, communication.slack_send, notification.{discord,slack,teams}.send_message, ai.vision_analyze [anthropic path], verify.visual_diff, browser.proxy_rotate, and the agent/llm inline base_url branch) perform outbound requests to a fully client-controlled URL without calling the project's own SSRF guard (validate_url_with_env_config) that their sibling modules apply. An authenticated workflow-author can point the URL at the cloud metadata IP (169.254.169.254), a loopback/RFC1918 host, or any internal host and read the response, yielding cloud-metadata credential theft and internal service read/write.
Root Cause
The SSRF guard is per-module (there is NO global egress interception). Each module must call validate_url_with_env_config before issuing a request. The listed modules never call it — they only carry an ssrf_protected metadata tag string which enforces nothing. Exemplar: src/core/modules/third_party/developer/http/requests.py — grepping for validate_url|ssrf|is_private in requests.py returns 0 guard calls; session.get(url) fires at :85 (HTTPGetModule) and session.post at :188 (HTTPPostModule). SECURITY.md incorrectly lists api.http_get as SSRF-protected.
Impact
Readable SSRF: full {status_code, headers, body} returned to the caller (requests.py:96-108). Enables theft of cloud IAM credentials from the metadata endpoint and read/write access to internal-only APIs. Scope Changed (S:C) — the request crosses into cloud-metadata / internal-network authority the workflow layer does not otherwise have.
Proof of Concept
Verified live this session: core.api.http_get with url pointed at a loopback internal server returned the internal body INTERNAL-SECRET-IAM-CREDENTIALS, while the guarded sibling http.get returned NETWORK_ERROR: Hostname blocked: 127.0.0.1 on the same input — proving the branch-asymmetry is real (not a port artifact).
POST /mcp {"method":"tools/call","params":{"name":"execute_module",
"arguments":{"module_id":"core.api.http_get",
"params":{"url":"http://<cloud-metadata-ip>/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/"}}}}
Attack Chain
- Entry: authenticated MCP client →
POST /mcpexecute_modulecore.api.http_get, url set to the cloud metadata endpoint. Guard:require_auth(mcp.py:71). Bypass proof: passes with a valid workflow-author bearer token (PR:L). - Check: capability denylist /
enforce_module_policy(base.py:240). Bypass proof:core.api.*not in_DEFAULT_DENYLIST(module_policy.py:45-67) →is_allowed=True(runtime-registration verified:core.api.http_get -> HTTPGetModule). - Check: SSRF validation. Bypass proof:
requests.pyhas ZEROvalidate_url/ssrf calls — only thessrf_protectedtag string at :23/:116.session.get(url)fires at :85. - Sink: aiohttp GET/POST to the cloud metadata IP.
- Impact: full response body returned → IAM credential theft, internal read/write.
Bypass Evidence
Grepping validate_url|ssrf|is_private in requests.py → 0 guard calls (2 hits are both the inert tag string). Live PoC returned internal body directly; guarded sibling blocked the same input. Direct IP works — no IPv6 transition trick needed (AC:L), unlike the seed CVE-2026-55787.
Affected Versions
<= 2.26.6 — code present on latest release tag v2.26.6 (requests.py:19,112).
Suggested Fix
Call validate_url_with_env_config(url) in each listed module before issuing the outbound request, matching the guarded siblings (e.g. ai.model:157, http.get). Best: route all outbound HTTP through a single guarded client wrapper so new modules inherit the guard.
Credit
Vulnerability discovered by zx (Jace).
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.26.6"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "flyto-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.26.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-67428"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-30T14:48:05Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-29T19:16:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\nNumerous HTTP-emitting modules (`core.api.http_get`, `core.api.http_post`, `graphql.query`/`graphql.mutation`, `monitor.http_check`, `communication.slack_send`, `notification.{discord,slack,teams}.send_message`, `ai.vision_analyze` [anthropic path], `verify.visual_diff`, `browser.proxy_rotate`, and the `agent`/`llm` inline base_url branch) perform outbound requests to a fully client-controlled URL **without calling the project\u0027s own SSRF guard** (`validate_url_with_env_config`) that their sibling modules apply. An authenticated workflow-author can point the URL at the cloud metadata IP (169.254.169.254), a loopback/RFC1918 host, or any internal host and read the response, yielding cloud-metadata credential theft and internal service read/write.\n\n## Root Cause\nThe SSRF guard is per-module (there is NO global egress interception). Each module must call `validate_url_with_env_config` before issuing a request. The listed modules never call it \u2014 they only carry an `ssrf_protected` **metadata tag string** which enforces nothing. Exemplar: `src/core/modules/third_party/developer/http/requests.py` \u2014 grepping for `validate_url|ssrf|is_private` in requests.py returns 0 guard calls; `session.get(url)` fires at `:85` (HTTPGetModule) and `session.post` at `:188` (HTTPPostModule). SECURITY.md incorrectly lists `api.http_get` as SSRF-protected.\n\n## Impact\nReadable SSRF: full `{status_code, headers, body}` returned to the caller (requests.py:96-108). Enables theft of cloud IAM credentials from the metadata endpoint and read/write access to internal-only APIs. Scope Changed (S:C) \u2014 the request crosses into cloud-metadata / internal-network authority the workflow layer does not otherwise have.\n\n## Proof of Concept\nVerified live this session: `core.api.http_get` with `url` pointed at a loopback internal server returned the internal body `INTERNAL-SECRET-IAM-CREDENTIALS`, while the guarded sibling `http.get` returned `NETWORK_ERROR: Hostname blocked: 127.0.0.1` on the same input \u2014 proving the branch-asymmetry is real (not a port artifact).\n```\nPOST /mcp {\"method\":\"tools/call\",\"params\":{\"name\":\"execute_module\",\n \"arguments\":{\"module_id\":\"core.api.http_get\",\n \"params\":{\"url\":\"http://\u003ccloud-metadata-ip\u003e/latest/meta-data/iam/security-credentials/\"}}}}\n```\n\n## Attack Chain\n1. Entry: authenticated MCP client \u2192 `POST /mcp` execute_module `core.api.http_get`, url set to the cloud metadata endpoint. Guard: `require_auth` (mcp.py:71). Bypass proof: passes with a valid workflow-author bearer token (PR:L).\n2. Check: capability denylist / `enforce_module_policy` (base.py:240). Bypass proof: `core.api.*` not in `_DEFAULT_DENYLIST` (module_policy.py:45-67) \u2192 `is_allowed=True` (runtime-registration verified: `core.api.http_get -\u003e HTTPGetModule`).\n3. Check: SSRF validation. Bypass proof: `requests.py` has ZERO `validate_url`/ssrf calls \u2014 only the `ssrf_protected` tag string at :23/:116. `session.get(url)` fires at :85.\n4. Sink: aiohttp GET/POST to the cloud metadata IP.\n5. Impact: full response body returned \u2192 IAM credential theft, internal read/write.\n\n## Bypass Evidence\nGrepping `validate_url|ssrf|is_private` in requests.py \u2192 0 guard calls (2 hits are both the inert tag string). Live PoC returned internal body directly; guarded sibling blocked the same input. Direct IP works \u2014 no IPv6 transition trick needed (AC:L), unlike the seed CVE-2026-55787.\n\n## Affected Versions\n`\u003c= 2.26.6` \u2014 code present on latest release tag v2.26.6 (`requests.py:19,112`).\n\n## Suggested Fix\nCall `validate_url_with_env_config(url)` in each listed module before issuing the outbound request, matching the guarded siblings (e.g. `ai.model:157`, `http.get`). Best: route all outbound HTTP through a single guarded client wrapper so new modules inherit the guard.\n\n## Credit\n\nVulnerability discovered by zx (Jace).",
"id": "GHSA-pgwh-4jj4-qm8v",
"modified": "2026-07-30T14:48:05Z",
"published": "2026-07-30T14:48:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/flytohub/flyto-core/security/advisories/GHSA-pgwh-4jj4-qm8v"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-67428"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/flytohub/flyto-core/commit/0a0a528520ec18f5a21f1ddf858a71cc1edfb6e9"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/flytohub/flyto-core"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/flytohub/flyto-core/releases/tag/v2.26.7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Flyto2 Core: Multiple HTTP-family modules fetch client-controlled URLs without the SSRF guard their siblings apply (SSRF to internal/metadata)"
}
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.