Everyone (including the submitter of the now public exploit who submitted the issue half a year ago to security@python.org and the NVD) seems to think that #99421 "accidently fixed" CVE-2023-24329.
Did the Python Security Response Team verify that this vulnerability that was reported to them and that is now public was fixed by #99421?
The PoC from the submitter still works for me with the Debian package 3.11.2-4, which surprised me and makes me wonder whether the fix had any effect at all on the stripping of leading blanks issue in the CVE.
Linked PRs
Everyone (including the submitter of the now public exploit who submitted the issue half a year ago to
security@python.organd the NVD) seems to think that #99421 "accidently fixed" CVE-2023-24329.Did the Python Security Response Team verify that this vulnerability that was reported to them and that is now public was fixed by #99421?
The PoC from the submitter still works for me with the Debian package 3.11.2-4, which surprised me and makes me wonder whether the fix had any effect at all on the stripping of leading blanks issue in the CVE.
Linked PRs
urlsplit#102508urlsplit(GH-102508) #104575urlsplit(GH-102508) (GH-104575) #104592urlsplit(GH-102508) (GH-104575) (GH-104592) #104593urlsplit(GH-102508) (GH-104575) (GH-104592) (#104593) #104895urlsplit(GH-102508) (GH-104575) (GH-104592) (#104593) #104896