CVE-2023-43654
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedTorchServe is a tool for serving and scaling PyTorch models in production. TorchServe default configuration lacks proper input validation, enabling third parties to invoke remote HTTP download requests and write files to the disk. This issue could be taken advantage of to compromise the integrity of the system and sensitive data. This issue is present in versions 0.1.0 to 0.8.1. A user is able to load the model of their choice from any URL that they would like to use. The user of TorchServe is responsible for configuring both the allowed_urls and specifying the model URL to be used. A pull request to warn the user when the default value for allowed_urls is used has been merged in PR #2534. TorchServe release 0.8.2 includes this change. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisThe server can be induced to make requests to a URL an attacker controls, turning it into a proxy into internal networks and cloud metadata services. It's especially dangerous behind a trusted network boundary. The fix is strict allow-listing of destinations and blocking access to internal address ranges.
General guidance for the server-side request forgery (ssrf) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 0.1.0, < 0.8.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped0.8.2
0.8.2
- Stop the TorchServe instance if currently running
- Upgrade TorchServe to version 0.8.2 or later (e.g., pip install torchserve==0.8.2 or download from the official GitHub releases)
- After upgrading, review the TorchServe configuration file (config.properties)
- Explicitly configure the 'allowed_urls' parameter to restrict which URLs TorchServe can load models from (e.g., allowed_urls=https://your-storage.example.com/)
- Start TorchServe with the updated configuration
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-43654 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2023-43654 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data