Skip to content

CVE-2024-35195 alert caused by pinning requests to version <2.32.3 #30

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
inuyasha82 opened this issue Jul 23, 2024 · 14 comments
Open

Comments

@inuyasha82
Copy link

Requests has a known vulnerability, that is fixed in versions 2.32.3.

Anyway this project in our requirements is causing an alert, because it still resolve to an older version of requests, as can be seen here:

'requests>=2.32.0,<2.32.3',

requires = [
    'jmespath>=0.10.0,<=1.0.1',
    'python-dateutil>=2.9.0,<3.0.0',
    'requests>=2.32.0,<2.32.3',
    'urllib3>=1.26.18,<3',
]

Is possible to fix this issue?

@avinash1IBM
Copy link
Member

@inuyasha82 The cve's description says that the vulnerability you mentioned above was fixed in 2.32.0 and we are already bound by that

Requests is a HTTP library. Prior to 2.32.0, when making requests through a Requests Session, if the first request is made with verify=False to disable cert verification, all subsequent requests to the same host will continue to ignore cert verification regardless of changes to the value of verify. This behavior will continue for the lifecycle of the connection in the connection pool. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.32.0.

@benSchaper
Copy link

I'm encountering an additional dependency conflict related to this version constraint. When trying to use this package alongside others that require requests>=2.32.3 like Docling the dependency resolver fails due to the upper bound <2.32.3 in ibm-cos-sdk-core.

Would it be possible to remove or update the upper bound constraint on requests to allow newer compatible versions? This would help resolve dependency conflicts while maintaining security requirements.

@avinash1IBM
Copy link
Member

@benSchaper Our team is working on it and will update you.

@lpulley
Copy link

lpulley commented Dec 31, 2024

Is there a bug preventing compatibility with requests 2.32.3?

@avinash1IBM
Copy link
Member

@lpulley yes there is this issue psf/requests#6730.

@adbuerger
Copy link

@avinash1IBM at this time, is it already foreseeable when the issue can/will be resolved? Thank you for your time and your reply.

@IBMalok
Copy link
Contributor

IBMalok commented May 2, 2025

@adbuerger - still the above issue is not resolve by the requests team. Waiting for them to fix it.

@illeatmyhat
Copy link

FYI ibm-watsonx-orchestrate==1.2.0 requires requests>=2.32.3 which makes these two packages mutually incompatible.
Maybe it's time to stop waiting for changes from upstream?

@bigpick
Copy link
Member

bigpick commented Jun 4, 2025

FWIW, we're also now seeing problems with requests getting pinged for CVE-2024-47081 so unless that is removed older pinned version will continue to see that (even after a fix is eventually released, if so), as well

edit: looks like it'll be 2.32.4 https://github.com/psf/requests/releases/tag/v2.32.4

@Prashant-IBM
Copy link
Contributor

Prashant-IBM commented Jun 10, 2025

Requests v2.32.4, includes important updates and fixes. We are working on addressing the requests dependency conflict and the CVE-2024-47081 issue. We will post the update here.

@ArvinB
Copy link
Member

ArvinB commented Jun 11, 2025

It would be great to get a progress update and ETA for resolution of this issue.

@Prashant-IBM
Copy link
Contributor

We will convey the ETA in a day or two.

@adbuerger
Copy link

@Prashant-IBM Maybe it is relevant information for you that there has been activity on psf/requests#6731 which was recently closed in favor of psf/requests#6767 which has just been merged

@Prashant-IBM
Copy link
Contributor

We are targeting Friday for the ETA.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

10 participants