GHSA-R8G5-CGF2-4M4M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-29 15:27 – Updated: 2025-12-29 15:27Summary
An unsafe deserialization vulnerability allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the host when loading a malicious pickle payload from an untrusted source.
Details
The numpy.f2py.crackfortran module exposes many functions that call eval on arbitrary strings of values. This is the case for getlincoef and _eval_length. This list is probably not exhaustive.
According to https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/security.html#advice-for-using-numpy-on-untrusted-data, the whole numpy.f2py should be considered unsafe when loading a pickle.
PoC
from numpy.f2py.crackfortran import getlincoef
class EvilClass:
def __reduce__(self):
payload = "__import__('os').system('echo \"successful attack\"')"
return getlincoef, (payload, [])
Impact
Who is impacted? Any organization or individual relying on picklescan to detect malicious pickle files from untrusted sources.
What is the impact? Attackers can embed malicious code in pickle file that remains undetected but executes when the pickle file is loaded.
Supply Chain Attack: Attackers can distribute infected pickle files across ML models, APIs, or saved Python objects.
Note
The problem was originally reported to the joblib project, but this was deemed unrelated to joblib itself. However, I checked that picklescan was indeed vulnerable.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "picklescan"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.33"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-502"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-12-29T15:27:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nAn unsafe deserialization vulnerability allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the host when loading a malicious pickle payload from an untrusted source.\n\n### Details\n\nThe `numpy.f2py.crackfortran` module exposes many functions that call `eval` on arbitrary strings of values. This is the case for `getlincoef` and `_eval_length`. This list is probably not exhaustive.\n\nAccording to https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/security.html#advice-for-using-numpy-on-untrusted-data, the whole `numpy.f2py` should be considered unsafe when loading a pickle.\n\n### PoC\n\n```python\nfrom numpy.f2py.crackfortran import getlincoef\n\nclass EvilClass:\n def __reduce__(self):\n payload = \"__import__(\u0027os\u0027).system(\u0027echo \\\"successful attack\\\"\u0027)\"\n return getlincoef, (payload, [])\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nWho is impacted? Any organization or individual relying on `picklescan` to detect malicious pickle files from untrusted sources.\nWhat is the impact? Attackers can embed malicious code in pickle file that remains undetected but executes when the pickle file is loaded.\nSupply Chain Attack: Attackers can distribute infected pickle files across ML models, APIs, or saved Python objects.\n\n### Note\n\nThe problem was originally reported to the joblib project, but this was deemed unrelated to joblib itself. However, I checked that `picklescan` was indeed vulnerable.",
"id": "GHSA-r8g5-cgf2-4m4m",
"modified": "2025-12-29T15:27:59Z",
"published": "2025-12-29T15:27:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/security/advisories/GHSA-r8g5-cgf2-4m4m"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/pull/53"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/commit/70c1c6c31beb6baaf52c8db1b6c3c0e84a6f9dab"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/releases/tag/v0.0.33"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Picklescan missing detection when calling numpy.f2py.crackfortran.getlincoef"
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.