** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. The debugger in affected versions of Werkzeug can allow an attacker to execute code on a developer's machine under some circumstances. This requires the attacker to get the developer to interact with a domain and subdomain they control, and enter the debugger PIN, but if they are successful it allows access to the debugger even if it is only running on localhost. This also requires the attacker to guess a URL in the developer's application that will trigger the debugger.

Affected versions of Werkzeug are vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) on Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11. The safe_join() function failed to properly detect certain absolute paths on Windows, allowing attackers to potentially access files outside the intended directory. An attacker could craft special paths starting with "/" that bypass the directory restrictions on Windows systems. The vulnerability exists in the safe_join() function which relied solely on os.path.isabs() for path validation. This is exploitable on Windows systems by passing paths starting with "/" to safe_join(). To remediate, upgrade to the latest version which includes additional path validation checks. 
NOTE: This vulnerability specifically affects Windows systems running Python versions below 3.11 where ntpath.isabs() behavior differs.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-23934: Browsers may allow "nameless" cookies that look like '=value' instead of 'key=value'. A vulnerable browser may allow a compromised application on an adjacent subdomain to exploit this to set a cookie like '=__Host-test=bad' for another subdomain. Werkzeug prior to 2.2.3 will parse the cookie '=__Host-test=bad' as __Host-test=bad'. If a Werkzeug application is running next to a vulnerable or malicious subdomain which sets such a cookie using a vulnerable browser, the Werkzeug application will see the bad cookie value but the valid cookie key.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-px8h-6qxv-m22q

Werkzeug is a comprehensive WSGI web application library. If an upload of a file that starts with CR or LF and then is followed by megabytes of data without these characters: all of these bytes are appended chunk by chunk into internal bytearray and lookup for boundary is performed on growing buffer. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests.

Werkzeug 3.0.1 and 2.3.8 include a security fix: Slow multipart parsing for large parts potentially enabling DoS attacks.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/commit/b1916c0c083e0be1c9d887ee2f3d696922bfc5c1

Affected versions of Werkzeug are potentially vulnerable to resource exhaustion when parsing file data in forms. Applications using 'werkzeug.formparser.MultiPartParser' to parse 'multipart/form-data' requests (e.g. all flask applications) are vulnerable to a relatively simple but effective resource exhaustion (denial of service) attack. A specifically crafted form submission request can cause the parser to allocate and block 3 to 8 times the upload size in main memory. There is no upper limit; a single upload at 1 Gbit/s can exhaust 32 GB of RAM in less than 60 seconds.

Werkzeug 2.2.3 includes a fix for CVE-2023-25577: Prior to version 2.2.3, Werkzeug's multipart form data parser will parse an unlimited number of parts, including file parts. Parts can be a small amount of bytes, but each requires CPU time to parse and may use more memory as Python data. If a request can be made to an endpoint that accesses 'request.data', 'request.form', 'request.files', or 'request.get_data(parse_form_data=False)', it can cause unexpectedly high resource usage. This allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by sending crafted multipart data to an endpoint that will parse it. The amount of CPU time required can block worker processes from handling legitimate requests. The amount of RAM required can trigger an out of memory kill of the process. Unlimited file parts can use up memory and file handles. If many concurrent requests are sent continuously, this can exhaust or kill all available workers.
https://github.com/pallets/werkzeug/security/advisories/GHSA-xg9f-g7g7-2323

** DISPUTED ** Py throughout 1.11.0 allows remote attackers to conduct a ReDoS (Regular expression Denial of Service) attack via a Subversion repository with crafted info data because the InfoSvnCommand argument is mishandled.
https://github.com/pytest-dev/py/issues/287

Affected versions of Flask (≤ 3.1.0) are vulnerable to incorrect fallback key configuration in session signing, leading to stale key usage instead of the intended current key. This flaw undermines session integrity, enabling remote attackers to forge or tamper with cookies via manipulated SECRET_KEY_FALLBACKS parameters. The vulnerability exists in the itsdangerous-based signing routines within flask.sessions (fallback key list ordering).

Flask 2.2.5 and 2.3.2 include a fix for CVE-2023-30861: When all of the following conditions are met, a response containing data intended for one client may be cached and subsequently sent by the proxy to other clients. If the proxy also caches 'Set-Cookie' headers, it may send one client's 'session' cookie to other clients. The severity depends on the application's use of the session and the proxy's behavior regarding cookies. The risk depends on all these conditions being met:
1. The application must be hosted behind a caching proxy that does not strip cookies or ignore responses with cookies.
2. The application sets 'session.permanent = True'
3. The application does not access or modify the session at any point during a request.
4. 'SESSION_REFRESH_EACH_REQUEST' enabled (the default).
5. The application does not set a 'Cache-Control' header to indicate that a page is private or should not be cached.
This happens because vulnerable versions of Flask only set the 'Vary: Cookie' header when the session is accessed or modified, not when it is refreshed (re-sent to update the expiration) without being accessed or modified.
https://github.com/pallets/flask/security/advisories/GHSA-m2qf-hxjv-5gpq

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.