Skip to content

Pin certifi to an uncompromised version number. (3.x) #1441

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
derek-globus merged 1 commit into from
Oct 22, 2026
Merged

Pin certifi to an uncompromised version number. (3.x) #1441

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions changelog.d/20261022_151229_derek_pin_3_x_certifi.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@

Security
--------

- Pin certifi to an uncompromised version number. (:pr:`NUMBER`)
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions pyproject.toml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ classifiers = [
requires-python = ">=3.8"
dependencies = [
"requests>=2.19.1,<3.0.0",
"certifi>=2026.10.19",
"pyjwt[crypto]>=2.0.0,<3.0.0",
# cryptography 3.4.0 is known-bugged, see:
# https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/5756
Comment on lines 29 to 30

@kurtmckee kurtmckee Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It catches my eye that we're adding this pin for security reasons, but are not similarly conscientious about forcing upgrades to, say, cryptography.

@derek-globus derek-globus Oct 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Open to further discussion, but (from my read of the issue) that's not a security issue, that's a crash-fail so I'd approach them with a different level of concern.

Not to say that we shouldn't necessarily apply a similar approach there, just that we definitely should apply it here.

Expand Down
Loading