Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Pygments 2.15.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-40896: The regular expressions used when parsing Smithy, SQL/SQL+Jinja, and Java properties files were discovered to be vulnerable. As a result, pygmentizing a maliciously-crafted file of these kinds would have resulted in high resources consumption or crashing of the application.
https://pyup.io/posts/pyup-discovers-redos-vulnerabilities-in-top-python-packages-part-2

Affected versions of Requests are vulnerable to proxy credential leakage. When redirected to an HTTPS endpoint, the Proxy-Authorization header is forwarded to the destination server due to the use of rebuild_proxies to reattach the header. This may allow a malicious actor to exfiltrate sensitive information.

Affected versions of Requests, when making requests through a Requests `Session`, if the first request is made with `verify=False` to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of `verify`. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. Requests 2.32.0 fixes the issue, but versions 2.32.0 and 2.32.1 were yanked due to conflicts with CVE-2024-35195 mitigation.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Denial of service could be caused to the command line interface of markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to use invalid UTF-8 characters as input.

Denial of service could be caused to markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to force null assertions with specially crafted input.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Pygments 2.15.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-40896: The regular expressions used when parsing Smithy, SQL/SQL+Jinja, and Java properties files were discovered to be vulnerable. As a result, pygmentizing a maliciously-crafted file of these kinds would have resulted in high resources consumption or crashing of the application.
https://pyup.io/posts/pyup-discovers-redos-vulnerabilities-in-top-python-packages-part-2

Affected versions of Requests are vulnerable to proxy credential leakage. When redirected to an HTTPS endpoint, the Proxy-Authorization header is forwarded to the destination server due to the use of rebuild_proxies to reattach the header. This may allow a malicious actor to exfiltrate sensitive information.

Affected versions of Requests, when making requests through a Requests `Session`, if the first request is made with `verify=False` to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of `verify`. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. Requests 2.32.0 fixes the issue, but versions 2.32.0 and 2.32.1 were yanked due to conflicts with CVE-2024-35195 mitigation.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Denial of service could be caused to the command line interface of markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to use invalid UTF-8 characters as input.

Denial of service could be caused to markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to force null assertions with specially crafted input.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Pygments 2.15.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-40896: The regular expressions used when parsing Smithy, SQL/SQL+Jinja, and Java properties files were discovered to be vulnerable. As a result, pygmentizing a maliciously-crafted file of these kinds would have resulted in high resources consumption or crashing of the application.
https://pyup.io/posts/pyup-discovers-redos-vulnerabilities-in-top-python-packages-part-2

Affected versions of Requests are vulnerable to proxy credential leakage. When redirected to an HTTPS endpoint, the Proxy-Authorization header is forwarded to the destination server due to the use of rebuild_proxies to reattach the header. This may allow a malicious actor to exfiltrate sensitive information.

Affected versions of Requests, when making requests through a Requests `Session`, if the first request is made with `verify=False` to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of `verify`. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. Requests 2.32.0 fixes the issue, but versions 2.32.0 and 2.32.1 were yanked due to conflicts with CVE-2024-35195 mitigation.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Denial of service could be caused to the command line interface of markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to use invalid UTF-8 characters as input.

Denial of service could be caused to markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to force null assertions with specially crafted input.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Pygments 2.15.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-40896: The regular expressions used when parsing Smithy, SQL/SQL+Jinja, and Java properties files were discovered to be vulnerable. As a result, pygmentizing a maliciously-crafted file of these kinds would have resulted in high resources consumption or crashing of the application.
https://pyup.io/posts/pyup-discovers-redos-vulnerabilities-in-top-python-packages-part-2

Affected versions of Requests are vulnerable to proxy credential leakage. When redirected to an HTTPS endpoint, the Proxy-Authorization header is forwarded to the destination server due to the use of rebuild_proxies to reattach the header. This may allow a malicious actor to exfiltrate sensitive information.

Affected versions of Requests, when making requests through a Requests `Session`, if the first request is made with `verify=False` to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of `verify`. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. Requests 2.32.0 fixes the issue, but versions 2.32.0 and 2.32.1 were yanked due to conflicts with CVE-2024-35195 mitigation.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Denial of service could be caused to the command line interface of markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to use invalid UTF-8 characters as input.

Denial of service could be caused to markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to force null assertions with specially crafted input.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Pygments 2.15.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-40896: The regular expressions used when parsing Smithy, SQL/SQL+Jinja, and Java properties files were discovered to be vulnerable. As a result, pygmentizing a maliciously-crafted file of these kinds would have resulted in high resources consumption or crashing of the application.
https://pyup.io/posts/pyup-discovers-redos-vulnerabilities-in-top-python-packages-part-2

Affected versions of Requests are vulnerable to proxy credential leakage. When redirected to an HTTPS endpoint, the Proxy-Authorization header is forwarded to the destination server due to the use of rebuild_proxies to reattach the header. This may allow a malicious actor to exfiltrate sensitive information.

Affected versions of Requests, when making requests through a Requests `Session`, if the first request is made with `verify=False` to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of `verify`. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. Requests 2.32.0 fixes the issue, but versions 2.32.0 and 2.32.1 were yanked due to conflicts with CVE-2024-35195 mitigation.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Denial of service could be caused to the command line interface of markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to use invalid UTF-8 characters as input.

Denial of service could be caused to markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to force null assertions with specially crafted input.

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Pygments 2.15.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-40896: The regular expressions used when parsing Smithy, SQL/SQL+Jinja, and Java properties files were discovered to be vulnerable. As a result, pygmentizing a maliciously-crafted file of these kinds would have resulted in high resources consumption or crashing of the application.
https://pyup.io/posts/pyup-discovers-redos-vulnerabilities-in-top-python-packages-part-2

Affected versions of Requests are vulnerable to proxy credential leakage. When redirected to an HTTPS endpoint, the Proxy-Authorization header is forwarded to the destination server due to the use of rebuild_proxies to reattach the header. This may allow a malicious actor to exfiltrate sensitive information.

Affected versions of Requests, when making requests through a Requests `Session`, if the first request is made with `verify=False` to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of `verify`. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. Requests 2.32.0 fixes the issue, but versions 2.32.0 and 2.32.1 were yanked due to conflicts with CVE-2024-35195 mitigation.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Denial of service could be caused to the command line interface of markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to use invalid UTF-8 characters as input.

Denial of service could be caused to markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to force null assertions with specially crafted input.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Affected versions of Idna are vulnerable to Denial Of Service via the idna.encode(), where a specially crafted argument could lead to significant resource consumption. In version 3.7, this function has been updated to reject such inputs efficiently, minimizing resource use. A practical workaround involves enforcing a maximum domain name length of 253 characters before encoding, as the vulnerability is triggered by unusually large inputs that normal operations wouldn't encounter.

Prior to 3.1.6, an oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment interacts with the |attr filter allows an attacker that controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to use the |attr filter to get a reference to a string's plain format method, bypassing the sandbox. After the fix, the |attr filter no longer bypasses the environment's attribute lookup. This vulnerability is fixed in 3.1.6.

An oversight in how the Jinja sandboxed environment detects calls to str.format allows an attacker who controls the content of a template to execute arbitrary Python code. To exploit the vulnerability, an attacker needs to control the content of a template. Whether that is the case depends on the type of application using Jinja. This vulnerability impacts users of applications which execute untrusted templates. Jinja's sandbox does catch calls to str.format and ensures they don't escape the sandbox. However, it's possible to store a reference to a malicious string's format method, then pass that to a filter that calls it. No such filters are built-in to Jinja, but could be present through custom filters in an application. After the fix, such indirect calls are also handled by the sandbox.

A vulnerability in the Jinja compiler allows an attacker who can control both the content and filename of a template to execute arbitrary Python code, bypassing Jinja's sandbox protections. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker must have the ability to manipulate both the template's filename and its contents. The risk depends on the application's specific use case. This issue affects applications that render untrusted templates where the attacker can determine the template filename, potentially leading to severe security breaches.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. The `xmlattr` filter in affected versions of Jinja accepts keys containing non-attribute characters. XML/HTML attributes cannot contain spaces, `/`, `>`, or `=`, as each would then be interpreted as starting a separate attribute. If an application accepts keys (as opposed to only values) as user input, and renders these in pages that other users see as well, an attacker could use this to inject other attributes and perform XSS. The fix for CVE-2024-22195 only addressed spaces but not other characters. Accepting keys as user input is now explicitly considered an unintended use case of the `xmlattr` filter, and code that does so without otherwise validating the input should be flagged as insecure, regardless of Jinja version. Accepting _values_ as user input continues to be safe.

Jinja is an extensible templating engine. Special placeholders in the template allow writing code similar to Python syntax. It is possible to inject arbitrary HTML attributes into the rendered HTML template, potentially leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). The Jinja `xmlattr` filter can be abused to inject arbitrary HTML attribute keys and values, bypassing the auto escaping mechanism and potentially leading to XSS. It may also be possible to bypass attribute validation checks if they are blacklist-based.

Pygments 2.15.0 includes a fix for CVE-2022-40896: The regular expressions used when parsing Smithy, SQL/SQL+Jinja, and Java properties files were discovered to be vulnerable. As a result, pygmentizing a maliciously-crafted file of these kinds would have resulted in high resources consumption or crashing of the application.
https://pyup.io/posts/pyup-discovers-redos-vulnerabilities-in-top-python-packages-part-2

Affected versions of Requests are vulnerable to proxy credential leakage. When redirected to an HTTPS endpoint, the Proxy-Authorization header is forwarded to the destination server due to the use of rebuild_proxies to reattach the header. This may allow a malicious actor to exfiltrate sensitive information.

Affected versions of Requests, when making requests through a Requests `Session`, if the first request is made with `verify=False` to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of `verify`. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. Requests 2.32.0 fixes the issue, but versions 2.32.0 and 2.32.1 were yanked due to conflicts with CVE-2024-35195 mitigation.

Urllib3's ProxyManager ensures that the Proxy-Authorization header is correctly directed only to configured proxies. However, when HTTP requests bypass urllib3's proxy support, there's a risk of inadvertently setting the Proxy-Authorization header, which remains ineffective without a forwarding or tunneling proxy. Urllib3 does not recognize this header as carrying authentication data, failing to remove it during cross-origin redirects. While this scenario is uncommon and poses low risk to most users, urllib3 now proactively removes the Proxy-Authorization header during cross-origin redirects as a precautionary measure. Users are advised to utilize urllib3's proxy support or disable automatic redirects to handle the Proxy-Authorization header securely. Despite these precautions, urllib3 defaults to stripping the header to safeguard users who may inadvertently misconfigure requests.

Affected versions of urllib3 are vulnerable to an HTTP redirect handling vulnerability that fails to remove the HTTP request body when a POST changes to a GET via 301, 302, or 303 responses. This flaw can expose sensitive request data if the origin service is compromised and redirects to a malicious endpoint, though exploitability is low when no sensitive data is used. The vulnerability affects automatic redirect behavior. It is fixed in versions 1.26.18 and 2.0.7; update or disable redirects using redirects=False.
This vulnerability is specific to Python's urllib3 library.

Urllib3 1.26.17 and 2.0.5 include a fix for CVE-2023-43804: Urllib3 doesn't treat the 'Cookie' HTTP header special or provide any helpers for managing cookies over HTTP, that is the responsibility of the user. However, it is possible for a user to specify a 'Cookie' header and unknowingly leak information via HTTP redirects to a different origin if that user doesn't disable redirects explicitly.
https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/security/advisories/GHSA-v845-jxx5-vc9f

Certifi 2023.07.22 includes a fix for CVE-2023-37920: Certifi prior to version 2023.07.22 recognizes "e-Tugra" root certificates. e-Tugra's root certificates were subject to an investigation prompted by reporting of security issues in their systems. Certifi 2023.07.22 removes root certificates from "e-Tugra" from the root store.
https://github.com/certifi/python-certifi/security/advisories/GHSA-xqr8-7jwr-rhp7

Certifi affected versions recognized root certificates from GLOBALTRUST. Certifi patch removes these root certificates from the root store. These certificates are being removed pursuant to an investigation that identified "long-running and unresolved compliance issues" and are also in the process of being removed from Mozilla's trust store.

Denial of service could be caused to the command line interface of markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to use invalid UTF-8 characters as input.

Denial of service could be caused to markdown-it-py, before v2.2.0, if an attacker was allowed to force null assertions with specially crafted input.