GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68: Lmdeploy LMDeploy Has An SSRF Bypass Vulnerability
HIGHGHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68 is a HIGH (CVSS 7.5) lmdeploy has an ssrf bypass vulnerability (CWE-436: Interpretation Conflict) affecting Lmdeploy libraries in the PyPI ecosystem. The issue involves lmdeploy has an ssrf bypass. Remediation is available by upgrading affected packages to version 0.15.0.
GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68 at a Glance
Security Impact
CVSS: 7.5
The security impact metrics below are parsed directly from the CVSS v3.1 vector string (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N).
How to Fix GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68
To remediate this vulnerability, upgrade all affected Lmdeploy dependencies to a patched release. Both direct and transitive dependencies should be checked, as frameworks or security libraries may pull in vulnerable versions transitively.
pip install lmdeploy>=0.15.0
Run the following command in your project directory to verify that all resolved dependencies use the patched release:
pip show lmdeploy
How to Check if You Are Affected
To determine whether your Python environment is affected by GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68, inspect your installed packages using pip:
pip show lmdeploy
Analyze the terminal output to locate any version of Lmdeploy in your dependency tree. If any resolved version matches the vulnerable ranges listed in the table below (for example, versions earlier than 0.15.0), your application is affected.
Note: The pip show lmdeploy command checks currently installed packages in your active Python environment.
Technical Details
Vulnerability Mechanism & Technical Analysis
This vulnerability is classified under CWE-436: Interpretation Conflict, where 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. In Lmdeploy, software state validation or input boundaries are circumvented during processing. Review the official source advisory statement below for specific affected components, classes, and reproduction details.
Source Advisory Statement
GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68 Affected Lmdeploy Versions
1 component(s)| Product / Package | Ecosystem | Affected Versions | Fixed Version |
|---|---|---|---|
|
lmdeploy
|
PyPI |
≥ 0.12.3
< 0.15.0
|
0.15.0
|
References
Frequently Asked Questions
What is GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?
Which Lmdeploy versions are affected?
What version fixes GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?
Is lmdeploy affected?
What is the CVSS score of GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?
What CWE is associated with GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?
How can I check PyPI dependencies for GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68?
Machine-readable OSV JSON
OSV v1.5 Schema
{
"schema_version" : "1.4.0",
"id" : "GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68",
"modified" : "2026-09-18T17:14:06Z",
"published" : "2026-09-18T17:14:06Z",
"aliases" : [ ],
"summary" : "LMDeploy has an SSRF bypass",
"details" : "### Summary\nThe URL checking logic in lmdeploy has a logical flaw that could be bypassed by attackers, leading to SSRF attacks.\n\n### Details\nThe 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.\n<img width=\"943\" height=\"836\" alt=\"QQ20260416-203956-16-1\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/042faad1-7458-444a-bbc9-525c772b0a4d\" />\nHowever, 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.\n<img width=\"1086\" height=\"576\" alt=\"QQ20260416-204053-16-2\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ffb8a69-b155-483a-90be-016c53e6387a\" />\nThe core issue: `urlparse()` and `requests` disagree on which host a URL like `http://127.0.0.1:6666\\@1.1.1.1` points to:\n\n- `urlparse()` treats `\\` as a regular character and `@` as the userinfo-host delimiter, so it extracts hostname as 1.1.1.1 (public)\n- `requests` treats `\\` as a path character, connecting to `127.0.0.1` (internal)\n\nBelow is a test code I wrote following the code.\n```\nfrom urllib.parse import urlparse\nimport ipaddress\nimport socket\nimport requests\n\n\ndef _is_safe_url(url: str) -> tuple[bool, str]:\n \"\"\"Check if the URL is safe to fetch (not internal/private).\"\"\"\n try:\n parsed = urlparse(url)\n if parsed.scheme not in (\"http\", \"https\"):\n return False, f\"Unsupported scheme: {parsed.scheme}\"\n\n hostname = parsed.hostname\n if not hostname:\n return False, \"Could not parse hostname from URL\"\n\n # check all IPs (IPv4 + IPv6) using getaddrinfo\n try:\n infos = socket.getaddrinfo(hostname, None)\n except socket.gaierror:\n return False, \"Hostname resolution failed\"\n\n for info in infos:\n ip = ipaddress.ip_address(info[4][0])\n # block any IP that is not globally routable (covers private, loopback,\n # link-local, multicast, reserved, unspecified, etc.)\n if not ip.is_global:\n return False, f\"Blocked non-global IP detected: {ip}\"\n\n return True, \"URL is safe\"\n except Exception as e:\n return False, f\"URL validation failed: {str(e)}\"\n\n\n# url = \"http://127.0.0.1:6666\"\nurl = \"http://127.0.0.1:6666\\@1.1.1.1\"\nis_safe, reason = _is_safe_url(url)\nif not is_safe:\n raise ValueError(f\"URL is blocked for security reasons: {reason}\")\n\nfetch_timeout = 10\n\nclient = requests.Session()\nclient.max_redirects = 3\nresponse = client.get(url, timeout=fetch_timeout, allow_redirects=True)\n```\nWhen 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.\n<img width=\"1286\" height=\"195\" alt=\"QQ20260416-204234-16-3\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b921ff01-3b9f-49a5-a410-bd21fe42f9c9\" />\nHowever, 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.\n\n<img width=\"2064\" height=\"154\" alt=\"QQ20260416-204319-16-4\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5da18f35-f400-46e6-9bf3-1330ba424b02\" />\n\n### PoC\n```\nhttp://127.0.0.1:6666\\@1.1.1.1\n```\n\n### Impact\nSSRF",
"severity" : [ {
"type" : "CVSS_V3",
"score" : "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N"
} ],
"affected" : [ {
"package" : {
"ecosystem" : "PyPI",
"name" : "lmdeploy"
},
"ranges" : [ {
"type" : "ECOSYSTEM",
"events" : [ {
"introduced" : "0.12.3"
}, {
"fixed" : "0.15.0"
} ]
} ]
} ],
"references" : [ {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/security/advisories/GHSA-39wr-7q6h-cf68"
}, {
"type" : "PACKAGE",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy"
}, {
"type" : "WEB",
"url" : "https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy/releases/tag/v0.15.0"
} ],
"database_specific" : {
"cwe_ids" : [ "CWE-436", "CWE-918" ],
"severity" : "HIGH",
"github_reviewed" : true,
"github_reviewed_at" : "2026-09-18T17:14:06Z",
"nvd_published_at" : null
}
}