Summary
Flyto2 Core: Guarded HTTP modules follow redirects into internal space without per-hop SSRF revalidation
The HTTP modules that DO call the SSRF guard (http.get, http.request, http.batch) validate only the initial URL, then issue the request with aiohttp's default allow_redirects=True and perform no per-hop revalidation. An attacker hosts a public URL that 302-redirects to an internal address; the guard passes on the public host and aiohttp transparently follows the redirect into internal space, returning the internal body.
Root Cause
src/core/modules/atomic/http/get.py:116 calls session.get(url, ...) with no allow_redirects argument → aiohttp default True. request.py:60 sets allow_redirects=follow_redirects (default True at :327); batch.py:57 likewise. A repo grep of http/ for on_request_redirect / response.history returns NONE, there is no redirect interception or Location revalidation.
Proof of Concept
Verified live: http.get with allowlisted base 127.0.0.1 followed a 302 Location: http://127.0.0.2/... (non-allowlisted) and returned INTERNAL-VIA-REDIRECT.
attacker hosts http://attacker.tld/r -> 302 Location: http://<cloud-metadata-ip>/latest/meta-data/...
execute_module http.get {"url":"http://attacker.tld/r"}
Attack Chain
- Entry:
execute_module http.get {url:"http://attacker.tld/r"}(attacker 302->internal). Guard:validate_url_with_env_config(url)(get.py:104). Bypass proof: validation runs onattacker.tld(public) → passes; never re-run on the redirect target. - Sink:
session.get(url)(get.py:116), noallow_redirectsarg → aiohttp default True. Bypass proof: grep ofhttp/foron_request_redirect/response.history→ NONE. - Impact: aiohttp follows 302 to the internal host; internal body returned (get.py:118).
Bypass Evidence
Live PoC followed a 302 into non-allowlisted loopback and returned the internal marker string. aiohttp ClientSession.get default allow_redirects=True; module never sets it False; no per-hop revalidation exists.
Affected Versions
<= 2.26.6, get.py:116, request.py:60, batch.py:57 present on latest release tag.
Credit
Vulnerability discovered by zx (Jace).
Impact
Full readable SSRF that defeats the primary SSRF control on the very modules that correctly validate. Confidentiality of internal/metadata responses (C:H), S:C.
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-2026-67424 has a CVSS score of 8.5 (High). The vector is network-reachable, low 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 (2.26.7); 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
Set allow_redirects=False and manually revalidate each Location header through validate_url_with_env_config before following, or cap and re-check every hop.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2026-67424? CVE-2026-67424 is a high-severity server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in flyto-core (pip), affecting versions <= 2.26.6. It is fixed in 2.26.7. 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-2026-67424? CVE-2026-67424 has a CVSS score of 8.5 (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 flyto-core are affected by CVE-2026-67424? flyto-core (pip) versions <= 2.26.6 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2026-67424? Yes. CVE-2026-67424 is fixed in 2.26.7. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2026-67424 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-67424 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-2026-67424 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-2026-67424? Upgrade
flyto-coreto 2.26.7 or later.