Skip to content

Flyto2 Core: Multiple HTTP-family modules fetch client-controlled URLs without the SSRF guard their siblings apply (SSRF to internal/metadata)

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 8, 2026 in flytohub/flyto-core • Updated Jul 30, 2026

Package

pip flyto-core (pip)

Affected versions

<= 2.26.6

Patched versions

2.26.7

Description

Summary

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

  1. Entry: authenticated MCP client → 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).
  2. 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).
  3. Check: SSRF validation. Bypass proof: requests.py has ZERO validate_url/ssrf calls — only the ssrf_protected tag string at :23/:116. session.get(url) fires at :85.
  4. Sink: aiohttp GET/POST to the cloud metadata IP.
  5. 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).

References

@ChesterHsu ChesterHsu published to flytohub/flyto-core Jul 8, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Jul 29, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 30, 2026
Reviewed Jul 30, 2026
Last updated Jul 30, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(26th percentile)

Weaknesses

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-67428

GHSA ID

GHSA-pgwh-4jj4-qm8v

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.