fix(security): block 0.0.0.0/8 range in SSRF protection#3223
Merged
Conversation
The numeric private-range check didn't include 0.0.0.0/8. Only the literal hostname string "0.0.0.0" was blocked, so a host that resolves to a 0.x.x.x address (e.g. "0", which routes to localhost on many systems) could slip through isPrivateIP. Add 0.0.0.0/8 to the blocked ranges.
github-actions
Bot
added
gssoc26
github-actions
Bot
added
type:feature
GSSoC Label Checklist 🏷️@Priyanshu-byte-coder — please apply the appropriate labels before merging: Difficulty (pick one):
Quality (optional):
Validation (required to score):
|
|
🎉 Merged! Thanks for contributing to DevTrack. If the project has been useful to you, a ⭐ star on the repo is the easiest way to support it — it helps DevTrack get discovered by more developers. Keep an eye on open issues for your next contribution! |
15 tasks
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The numeric private-range check in
isPrivateIPdidn't include0.0.0.0/8. Only the literal hostname"0.0.0.0"was blocked, so a host resolving to any0.x.x.xaddress (e.g.0, which routes to localhost on many systems) could bypassisSafeUrl. Adds0.0.0.0/8toPRIVATE_RANGES.Finding surfaced by #3218 (extracted here as a focused change; that PR bundled 15 workflow files + unrelated UI edits).