GHSA-jgw4-cr84-mqxg CVE-2025-10155 PYSEC-2025-151
Picklescan Bypass is Possible via File Extension Mismatch
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.85%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 58.08% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Fix
0.0.31- Upgrade picklescan to this version or later
Description
Summary
Picklescan can be bypassed, allowing the detection of malicious pickle files to fail, when a standard pickle file is given a PyTorch-related file extension (e.g., .bin). This occurs because the scanner prioritizes PyTorch file extension checks and errors out when parsing a standard pickle file with such an extension instead of falling back to standard pickle analysis. This vulnerability allows attackers to disguise malicious pickle payloads within files that would otherwise be scanned for pickle-based threats.
Details
The vulnerability stems from the logic in the scan_bytes function within picklescan/scanner.py, specifically around line 463: https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/blob/75e60f2c02f3f1a029362e6f334e1921392dcf60/src/picklescan/scanner.py#L463 The code first checks if the file extension (file_ext) is in the pytorch_file_extension list. If it is (e.g., .bin), the scan_pytorch function is called. When a standard pickle file is encountered with a PyTorch extension, scan_pytorch will likely fail. Critically, the code then returns an Error without attempting to analyze the file as a standard pickle using scan_pickle_bytes. This prevents the detection of malicious payloads within such files.
PoC
-
Download a malicious pickle file with a standard .pkl extension: wget https://huggingface.co/kzanki/regular_model/resolve/main/model.pkl?download=true -O model.pkl
-
Scan the file with Picklescan (correct detection): /home/davfr/Tests/HF/dangerous_model/model.pkl: dangerous import 'builtins exec' FOUND ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 1 Dangerous globals: 1
-
Rename the file to use a PyTorch-related extension (e.g., .bin): cp model.pkl model.bin
-
Scan the renamed file with Picklescan: Screenshot 2025-06-29 at 9 38 13
Observed Result: Picklescan fails and reports an error related to PyTorch parsing but does not detect the malicious pickle content. Expected Result: Picklescan should recognize the file as a standard pickle format despite the .bin extension and scan it accordingly, identifying the malicious content.
Impact
Severity: High Affected Users: Any organization or individual relying on Picklescan to ensure the safety of PyTorch models or other files that might contain embedded pickle objects. This includes users downloading pre-trained models or receiving files that could potentially contain malicious code. Impact Details: Attackers can craft malicious pickle payloads and disguise them within files using common PyTorch extensions (like .bin, .pt, etc.). These files would then bypass PickleScan's detection mechanism, allowing the malicious code to execute when the file is loaded by a vulnerable application or user. Potential Exploits: This vulnerability significantly weakens the security provided by PickleScan. It opens the door to various supply chain attacks, where malicious actors could distribute backdoored models through platforms like Hugging Face, PyTorch Hub, or even through direct file sharing. Users trusting PickleScan would be unknowingly exposed to these threats. Recommendations The most effective solution is to modify the scanning logic to ensure that standard pickle scanning is attempted as a fallback mechanism when PyTorch scanning fails or is not applicable. A suggested approach is: Attempt PyTorch Scan: If the file extension matches a known PyTorch extension, attempt to scan it as a PyTorch object. Fallback to Pickle Scan: Regardless of the success or failure of the PyTorch scan (or if the extension is not a PyTorch extension), always attempt to scan the file as a standard pickle. This ensures that files with misleading extensions are still analyzed for potential pickle-based vulnerabilities.
Suggested Patch
--- a/src/picklescan/scanner.py
+++ b/src/picklescan/scanner.py
@@ -462,19 +462,28 @@ def scan_bytes(data: IO[bytes], file_id, file_ext: Optional[str] = None) -> Scan
if file_ext is not None and file_ext in pytorch_file_extensions:
try:
return scan_pytorch(data, file_id)
except InvalidMagicError as e:
- _log.error(f"ERROR: Invalid magic number for file {e}")
- return ScanResult([], scan_err=True)
+ _log.warning(f"PyTorch scan failed for {file_id} with extension {file_ext}: {e}")
+ # Don't return error here - continue to other scan methods
elif file_ext is not None and file_ext in numpy_file_extensions:
- return scan_numpy(data, file_id)
- else:
- is_zip = zipfile.is_zipfile(data)
- data.seek(0)
- if is_zip:
- return scan_zip_bytes(data, file_id)
- elif is_7z_file(data):
- return scan_7z_bytes(data, file_id)
- else:
- return scan_pickle_bytes(data, file_id)
+ try:
+ return scan_numpy(data, file_id)
+ except Exception as e:
+ _log.warning(f"NumPy scan failed for {file_id}: {e}")
+
+ # Always attempt additional format checks as fallback
+ data.seek(0) # Reset stream position
+ is_zip = zipfile.is_zipfile(data)
+ data.seek(0)
+ if is_zip:
+ return scan_zip_bytes(data, file_id)
+ elif is_7z_file(data):
+ return scan_7z_bytes(data, file_id)
+ else:
+ # FIX: Always attempt pickle scanning as fallback
+ # This prevents the vulnerability where pickle files with wrong extensions bypass detection
+ return scan_pickle_bytes(data, file_id)
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| picklescan | < 0.0.31 |
0.0.31 |
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.
picklescan PyPI → 0.0.31
- pip
pip install --upgrade "picklescan>=0.0.31"- poetry
poetry add "picklescan>=0.0.31"- uv
uv add "picklescan>=0.0.31"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
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
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- High
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.8
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]
- Architecture and Design: Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Architecture and Design, Implementation: Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
- 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.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.
- Implementation: When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.
- Implementation: Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.
- Implementation: Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.
- Implementation: Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control. Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.
- Implementation: When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.
CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/security/advisories/GHSA-jgw4-cr84-mqxg
- github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/commit/28a7b4ef753466572bda3313737116eeb9b4e5c5
- github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/blob/58983e1c20973ac42f2df7ff15d7c8cd32f9b688/…
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/picklescan/PYSEC-2025-151.yaml
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-g38g-8gr9-h9xp PickleScan has multiple stdlib modules with direct RCE not in blocklist | Critical | Also affects picklescan |
| GHSA-vvpj-8cmc-gx39 PickleScan's pkgutil.resolve_name has a universal blocklist bypass | Critical | Also affects picklescan |
| GHSA-7wx9-6375-f5wh PickleScan's profile.run blocklist mismatch allows exec() bypass | Critical | Also affects picklescan |
| GHSA-97f8-7cmv-76j2 Picklescan (scan_pytorch) Bypass via dynamic eval MAGIC_NUMBER | High | Also affects picklescan |
| GHSA-m7j5-r2p5-c39r picklescan vulnerable to arbitrary file create using logging.FileHandler | Medium | Also affects picklescan |
| GHSA-9m3x-qqw2-h32h picklescan missing detection by simple obfuscation of a `builtins.eval` call | Critical | Also affects picklescan |
| GHSA-9726-w42j-3qjr picklescan has Arbitrary file read using `io.FileIO` | High | Also affects picklescan |
| GHSA-46h3-79wf-xr6c Picklescan is vulnerable to RCE via missing detection when calling built-in python _operator.attrgetter | High | Also affects picklescan |
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