Summary
openssl-encrypt has CORS wildcard with allow_credentials=True in standalone servers
Both standalone servers configure CORS with allow_origins=["*"], allow_credentials=True, allow_methods=["*"], and allow_headers=["*"].
Affected Code
# server/key-server/app/main.py:86-92
# server/telemetry-server/app/main.py:23-29
app.add_middleware(
CORSMiddleware,
allow_origins=settings.cors_origins, # defaults to ["*"]
allow_credentials=True,
allow_methods=["*"],
allow_headers=["*"],
)
The docker-compose file (openssl_encrypt_server/docker-compose.yml:75) also defaults CORS_ORIGINS to *, and .env.example ships with CORS_ORIGINS=*.
Fix
Fixed in commit 809416b on branch releases/1.4.x, changed CORS default from ["*"] to [] in both key-server and telemetry-server; added validation rejecting wildcard when debug=False.
Impact
This is the most permissive CORS configuration possible, allowing any website to make fully credentialed cross-origin requests to the API. An attacker's website could make authenticated API calls on behalf of any user who visits it.
The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions. Typical impact: unauthorized data access or execution of privileged operations.
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
- Remove wildcard defaults, require explicit origin configuration
- Never combine
allow_origins=["*"]withallow_credentials=True - Update
.env.examplewith placeholder domains instead of*
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV? GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV is a medium-severity incorrect authorization vulnerability in openssl-encrypt (pip), affecting versions < 1.4.0. It is fixed in 1.4.0. The application does not correctly enforce access controls, allowing a principal to access resources or operations beyond their granted permissions.
- Which versions of openssl-encrypt are affected by GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV? openssl-encrypt (pip) versions < 1.4.0 is affected.
- Is there a fix for GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV? Yes. GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV is fixed in 1.4.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV 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 GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV 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 GHSA-C65F-X25W-62JV? Upgrade
openssl-encryptto 1.4.0 or later.