https://cve.radiocsirt.org Contains only the most 10 recent entries. http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification python-feedgen en Fri, 02 Oct 2026 16:26:35 +0000 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/alsa-2024:0116 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> AlmaLinux:8: python3-urllib3</p> <p>The python-urllib3 package provides the Python HTTP module with connection pooling and file POST abilities.</p> <p>Security Fix(es):</p> <p>* python-urllib3: Cookie request header isn&#39;t stripped during cross-origin redirects (CVE-2023-43804) * urllib3: Request body not stripped after redirect from 303 status changes request method to GET (CVE-2023-45803)</p> <p>For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> AlmaLinux:8: python3-urllib3</p> <p>The python-urllib3 package provides the Python HTTP module with connection pooling and file POST abilities.</p> <p>Security Fix(es):</p> <p>* python-urllib3: Cookie request header isn&#39;t stripped during cross-origin redirects (CVE-2023-43804) * urllib3: Request body not stripped after redirect from 303 status changes request method to GET (CVE-2023-45803)</p> <p>For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/alsa-2024:0116 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2023-06977 bdu:2023-06977 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bdu:2023-06977 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2023-45803 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:23: py3-urllib3, Alpaquita:stream: py3-urllib3</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Alpaquita:23: py3-urllib3, Alpaquita:stream: py3-urllib3</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/bell-cve-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/brew-airshare-cve-2023-45803 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Homebrew: airshare</p> <p>urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 303 &#34;See Other&#34; after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although the behavior of removing the request body is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers.</p> <p>From [RFC 9110 Section 9.3.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-get):</p> <p>&gt; A client SHOULD NOT generate content in a GET request unless it is made directly to an origin server that has previously indicated, in or out of band, that such a request has a purpose and will be adequately supported.</p> <p>## Affected usages</p> <p>Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable.</p> <p>Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability:</p> <p>* If you&#39;re using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) * The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 303 to a malicious peer or the redirect…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Homebrew: airshare</p> <p>urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 303 &#34;See Other&#34; after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although the behavior of removing the request body is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers.</p> <p>From [RFC 9110 Section 9.3.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-get):</p> <p>&gt; A client SHOULD NOT generate content in a GET request unless it is made directly to an origin server that has previously indicated, in or out of band, that such a request has a purpose and will be adequately supported.</p> <p>## Affected usages</p> <p>Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable.</p> <p>Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability:</p> <p>* If you&#39;re using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) * The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 303 to a malicious peer or the redirect…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/brew-airshare-cve-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2023-avi-0956 certfr-2023-avi-0956 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/certfr-2023-avi-0956 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cleanstart-2026-ft49306 <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> CleanStart: py3-urllib3</p> <p>Package py3-urllib3 version 1.26.18-r0 fixes 1 vulnerabilities: CVE-2023-45803</p> <p><strong>Withdrawn by the publisher.</strong></p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> CleanStart: py3-urllib3</p> <p>Package py3-urllib3 version 1.26.18-r0 fixes 1 vulnerabilities: CVE-2023-45803</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/cleanstart-2026-ft49306 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-258473 EUVD-2026-258473 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/euvd-2026-258473 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2023-45803 <p>urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services that aren&#39;t expecting to respond with redirects with `redirects=False` and disa…</p> <p>urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services that aren&#39;t expecting to respond with redirects with `redirects=False` and disa…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/fkie_cve-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-g4mx-q9vg-27p4 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: urllib3</p> <p>urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 303 &#34;See Other&#34; after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although the behavior of removing the request body is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers.</p> <p>From [RFC 9110 Section 9.3.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-get):</p> <p>&gt; A client SHOULD NOT generate content in a GET request unless it is made directly to an origin server that has previously indicated, in or out of band, that such a request has a purpose and will be adequately supported.</p> <p>## Affected usages</p> <p>Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable.</p> <p>Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability:</p> <p>* If you&#39;re using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) * The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 303 to a malicious peer or the redirect…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: urllib3</p> <p>urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 303 &#34;See Other&#34; after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although the behavior of removing the request body is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers.</p> <p>From [RFC 9110 Section 9.3.1](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#name-get):</p> <p>&gt; A client SHOULD NOT generate content in a GET request unless it is made directly to an origin server that has previously indicated, in or out of band, that such a request has a purpose and will be adequately supported.</p> <p>## Affected usages</p> <p>Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable.</p> <p>Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability:</p> <p>* If you&#39;re using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) * The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 303 to a malicious peer or the redirect…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ghsa-g4mx-q9vg-27p4 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/gsd-2023-45803 gsd-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/gsd-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2023-45803 msrc_CVE-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/msrc_cve-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2023-1840 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> openEuler:20.03-LTS-SP1: python-urllib3, openEuler:20.03-LTS-SP3: python-urllib3, openEuler:22.03-LTS: python-urllib3, openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP1: python-urllib3, openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP2: python-urllib3</p> <p>Sanity-friendly HTTP client for Python Security Fix(es): urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&amp;apos;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&amp;apos;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&amp;apos;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services t…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> openEuler:20.03-LTS-SP1: python-urllib3, openEuler:20.03-LTS-SP3: python-urllib3, openEuler:22.03-LTS: python-urllib3, openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP1: python-urllib3, openEuler:22.03-LTS-SP2: python-urllib3</p> <p>Sanity-friendly HTTP client for Python Security Fix(es): urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&amp;apos;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&amp;apos;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&amp;apos;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services t…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/oesa-2023-1840 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2024:13343-1 <p>python310-urllib3-2.0.7-1.1 on GA media</p> <p>python310-urllib3-2.0.7-1.1 on GA media</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/opensuse-su-2024:13343-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/pysec-2023-212 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: urllib3</p> <p>urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services that aren&#39;t expecting to respond with redirects with `redirects=False` and disa…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> PyPI: urllib3</p> <p>urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services that aren&#39;t expecting to respond with redirects with `redirects=False` and disa…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/pysec-2023-212 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhba-2024:1091 <p>urllib3: Request body not stripped after redirect from 303 status changes request method to GET pycryptodome: side-channel leakage for OAEP decryption in PyCryptodome and pycryptodomex jinja2: HTML attribute injection when passing user input as keys to xmlattr filter</p> <p>urllib3: Request body not stripped after redirect from 303 status changes request method to GET pycryptodome: side-channel leakage for OAEP decryption in PyCryptodome and pycryptodomex jinja2: HTML attribute injection when passing user input as keys to xmlattr filter</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/rhba-2024:1091 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2023:4352-1 <p>Security update for python-urllib3</p> <p>Security update for python-urllib3</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/suse-su-2023:4352-1 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2023-45803 <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:20.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:20.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: python-urllib3 and 1 more</p> <p>urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services that aren&#39;t expecting to respond with redirects with `redirects=False` and disa…</p> <p><strong>Affected:</strong> Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:Pro:14.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:Pro:16.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:Pro:18.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:20.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:20.04:LTS: python-urllib3, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: python-pip, Ubuntu:22.04:LTS: python-urllib3 and 1 more</p> <p>urllib3 is a user-friendly HTTP client library for Python. urllib3 previously wouldn&#39;t remove the HTTP request body when an HTTP redirect response using status 301, 302, or 303 after the request had its method changed from one that could accept a request body (like `POST`) to `GET` as is required by HTTP RFCs. Although this behavior is not specified in the section for redirects, it can be inferred by piecing together information from different sections and we have observed the behavior in other major HTTP client implementations like curl and web browsers. Because the vulnerability requires a previously trusted service to become compromised in order to have an impact on confidentiality we believe the exploitability of this vulnerability is low. Additionally, many users aren&#39;t putting sensitive data in HTTP request bodies, if this is the case then this vulnerability isn&#39;t exploitable. Both of the following conditions must be true to be affected by this vulnerability: 1. Using urllib3 and submitting sensitive information in the HTTP request body (such as form data or JSON) and 2. The origin service is compromised and starts redirecting using 301, 302, or 303 to a malicious peer or the redirected-to service becomes compromised. This issue has been addressed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7 and users are advised to update to resolve this issue. Users unable to update should disable redirects for services that aren&#39;t expecting to respond with redirects with `redirects=False` and disa…</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/ubuntu-cve-2023-45803 https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2023-2964 <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Splunk Splunk Enterprise ausnutzen, um einen Cross-Site Scripting Angriff durchzuführen, um Code auszuführen und um nicht näher spezifizierte Auswirkungen zu erzielen.</p> <p>Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Splunk Splunk Enterprise ausnutzen, um einen Cross-Site Scripting Angriff durchzuführen, um Code auszuführen und um nicht näher spezifizierte Auswirkungen zu erzielen.</p> https://cve.radiocsirt.org/vuln/wid-sec-w-2023-2964