security(fetch): block RFC 6598 CGNAT in the SSRF guard - #163
Merged
Conversation
is_private does not cover 100.64.0.0/10. The host check now also rejects addresses with is_global False, including the IPv4-mapped form. Closes #156
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
_ip_is_forbiddenenumeratedis_private/ loopback / link-local / reserved / multicast / unspecified. Python does not setis_privateon RFC 6598 shared space, so adid:web/ status / schema host resolving to100.64.0.1(or::ffff:100.64.0.1) was fetched.The guard now also rejects
not ip.is_global. Multicast stays in the explicit union because some multicast addresses reportis_global=True.Closes #156
Verified:
bash .claude/skills/ship-issue/scripts/gate.sh(flake8, mypy, pytest 1636 passed / coverage 91%, build+twine).