CWE-345
DiscouragedInsufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
1283 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-VMXQ-HQJM-CXV7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-02 12:31 – Updated: 2026-10-05 21:31Cleartext transmission of sensitive information vulnerability in Apache Directory LDAP API.
A StartTLS extended operation started after a Search request has been sent can lead to receive data in plain text before the TLS Handshake has been completed.
This issue affects Apache Directory LDAP API: from 2.1.0 before 2.1.9.
Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.1.9, which fixes the issue.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-103878"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-02T10:17:06Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cleartext transmission of sensitive information\u00a0vulnerability in Apache Directory LDAP API.\n\n\n\nA StartTLS extended operation started after a Search request has been sent can lead to receive data in plain text before the TLS Handshake has been completed.\n\n\n\nThis issue affects Apache Directory LDAP API: from 2.1.0 before 2.1.9.\n\n\n\nUsers are recommended to upgrade to version 2.1.9, which fixes the issue.",
"id": "GHSA-vmxq-hqjm-cxv7",
"modified": "2026-10-05T21:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-10-02T12:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-103878"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d98f9w01nd3zmkwrr21y0l9kdr9jpty9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/10/02/6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VPGV-M5MC-MGC7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-23 12:31 – Updated: 2026-09-23 12:31The Paymob for WooCommerce WordPress plugin before 4.1.14 does not verify the request signature on one branch of its payment webhook, allowing unauthenticated attackers to mark arbitrary WooCommerce orders as paid without any payment.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-87978"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-23T11:17:15Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Paymob for WooCommerce WordPress plugin before 4.1.14 does not verify the request signature on one branch of its payment webhook, allowing unauthenticated attackers to mark arbitrary WooCommerce orders as paid without any payment.",
"id": "GHSA-vpgv-m5mc-mgc7",
"modified": "2026-09-23T12:31:15Z",
"published": "2026-09-23T12:31:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-87978"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/7eecf65a-3b85-405e-bbe2-893960c82ba7"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VQ3C-FHQV-P29R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-27 00:00 – Updated: 2022-08-04 00:00JTEKT TOYOPUC PLCs through 2022-04-29 do not ensure data integrity. They utilize the unauthenticated CMPLink/TCP protocol for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the PLC. Control logic is downloaded to the PLC on a block-by-block basis with a given memory address and a blob of machine code. The logic that is downloaded to the PLC is not cryptographically authenticated, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary machine code on the PLC's CPU module in the context of the runtime. In the case of the PC10G-CPU, and likely for other CPU modules of the TOYOPUC family, a processor without MPU or MMU is used and this no memory protection or privilege-separation capabilities are available, giving an attacker full control over the CPU.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-29958"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-26T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "JTEKT TOYOPUC PLCs through 2022-04-29 do not ensure data integrity. They utilize the unauthenticated CMPLink/TCP protocol for engineering purposes, including downloading projects and control logic to the PLC. Control logic is downloaded to the PLC on a block-by-block basis with a given memory address and a blob of machine code. The logic that is downloaded to the PLC is not cryptographically authenticated, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary machine code on the PLC\u0027s CPU module in the context of the runtime. In the case of the PC10G-CPU, and likely for other CPU modules of the TOYOPUC family, a processor without MPU or MMU is used and this no memory protection or privilege-separation capabilities are available, giving an attacker full control over the CPU.",
"id": "GHSA-vq3c-fhqv-p29r",
"modified": "2022-08-04T00:00:23Z",
"published": "2022-07-27T00:00:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29958"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-22-172-02"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.forescout.com/blog"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VQ3F-PC8H-PV73
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-31 12:30 – Updated: 2026-07-31 12:30A flaw was found in Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes (RHACS). When processing Kubernetes Deployments, ACS replaces deployment identity metadata based on the openshift.io/encoded-deployment-config label. A user with permission to create Deployments can set this label to "null", causing ACS to treat the workload as having empty UID, name and labels and namespace "default". This bypasses deploy-time policy detection and enforcement visibility, prevents correct persistence in Central and breaks violation reporting and compliance correlation for the affected deployment.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-10079"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-31T10:16:43Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A flaw was found in Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes (RHACS). When processing Kubernetes Deployments, ACS replaces deployment identity metadata based on the openshift.io/encoded-deployment-config label. A user with permission to create Deployments can set this label to \"null\", causing ACS to treat the workload as having empty UID, name and labels and namespace \"default\". This bypasses deploy-time policy detection and enforcement visibility, prevents correct persistence in Central and breaks violation reporting and compliance correlation for the affected deployment.",
"id": "GHSA-vq3f-pc8h-pv73",
"modified": "2026-07-31T12:30:29Z",
"published": "2026-07-31T12:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-10079"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2026-10079"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2483158"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VQF2-5H8G-FV6R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-07 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-07 09:31The Charitable – Donation Plugin for WordPress – Fundraising with Recurring Donations & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in versions up to, and including, 1.8.9.7. This is due to missing cryptographic verification of incoming Stripe webhook events. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge payment_intent.succeeded webhook payloads and mark pending donations as completed without a real payment.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-3177"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-07T08:16:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Charitable \u2013 Donation Plugin for WordPress \u2013 Fundraising with Recurring Donations \u0026 More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in versions up to, and including, 1.8.9.7. This is due to missing cryptographic verification of incoming Stripe webhook events. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to forge payment_intent.succeeded webhook payloads and mark pending donations as completed without a real payment.",
"id": "GHSA-vqf2-5h8g-fv6r",
"modified": "2026-04-07T09:31:22Z",
"published": "2026-04-07T09:31:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-3177"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3485023/charitable"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/bc3b2645-7b57-4884-99c5-e37dbd4a9600?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VQFF-R82H-9CRC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-16 19:23 – Updated: 2026-10-16 19:23Summary
The MCP Apps UI resource (an interactive DataStore table rendered in the host's webview/iframe) communicates with its parent via postMessage. Its inbound message listener performs no event.origin validation, and its outbound messages are sent with target origin '*'. Any window/frame able to reach the document can inject data into the table and interfere with the MCP UI handshake, and the UI's own JSON-RPC messages are broadcast without an origin restriction.
Affected code
src/resources/datastore-table-ui.ts (inline HTML):
window.addEventListener('message', function (event) {
var msg = event.data; // no check of event.origin
if (!msg || typeof msg !== 'object') return;
if (msg.id !== undefined && _pending[msg.id]) { ... resolve/reject pending MCP request ... }
...
if (data && (data.fields || data.records)) initTable(data); // renders attacker-supplied data
});
// outbound:
window.parent.postMessage({ jsonrpc: '2.0', id: id, method: method, params: params || {} }, '*');
mcpNot: window.parent.postMessage({ jsonrpc:'2.0', method:method, params:params||{} }, '*');
There is no allowlist of accepted origins for inbound messages and no fixed target origin for outbound messages.
Impact
- Content spoofing. A frame that can
postMessageto the UI can supply arbitraryfields/records, causing the table to render fabricated rows and links (e.g. a phishing__link_url) that appear to come from the queried portal. (Values are HTML-escaped, so this is display spoofing, not script injection — no XSS.) - Handshake/UX interference. Because inbound messages matching a pending
idresolve/reject the UI's MCP requests, an attacker frame can spoof responses to theui/initializehandshake or otherwise disrupt the panel. - Outbound leakage. Posting to
'*'means the UI's JSON-RPC messages are delivered to whatever the parent origin is; if the resource is ever embedded by a context other than the trusted host, those messages leak to it.
Exploitability depends on the host embedding model (in a correct MCP Apps host the parent is the trusted host, which limits who can message the frame), so this is a hardening / defense-in-depth issue rather than a directly remotely-triggerable one — hence Low.
Proof of concept
poc/verify-no-origin-check.mjs— static confirmation that the listener has no origin check and outbound uses'*':
[x] validates event.origin : NO
[x] outgoing postMessage targetOrigin : '*' (any)
RESULT: VULNERABLE
poc/parent-spoof-poc.html— a page that embeds the UI and injects fabricated rows cross-origin with no handshake; the UI renders them.
Remediation
- Validate
event.originagainst the expected host origin on every inbound message; drop messages from other origins. - Send outbound
postMessagewith an explicit target origin (the host origin established at initialize time) instead of'*'. - Optionally, bind to a nonce/channel established during
ui/initializeso only the negotiated host can drive the panel.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@aborruso/ckan-mcp-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.4.112"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-76894"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-940"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-10-16T19:23:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe MCP Apps UI resource (an interactive DataStore table rendered in the host\u0027s webview/iframe) communicates with its parent via `postMessage`. Its inbound `message` listener performs no `event.origin` validation, and its outbound messages are sent with target origin `\u0027*\u0027`. Any window/frame able to reach the document can inject data into the table and interfere with the MCP UI handshake, and the UI\u0027s own JSON-RPC messages are broadcast without an origin restriction.\n\n## Affected code\n\n`src/resources/datastore-table-ui.ts` (inline HTML):\n\n```js\nwindow.addEventListener(\u0027message\u0027, function (event) {\n var msg = event.data; // no check of event.origin\n if (!msg || typeof msg !== \u0027object\u0027) return;\n if (msg.id !== undefined \u0026\u0026 _pending[msg.id]) { ... resolve/reject pending MCP request ... }\n ...\n if (data \u0026\u0026 (data.fields || data.records)) initTable(data); // renders attacker-supplied data\n});\n\n// outbound:\nwindow.parent.postMessage({ jsonrpc: \u00272.0\u0027, id: id, method: method, params: params || {} }, \u0027*\u0027);\nmcpNot: window.parent.postMessage({ jsonrpc:\u00272.0\u0027, method:method, params:params||{} }, \u0027*\u0027);\n```\n\nThere is no allowlist of accepted origins for inbound messages and no fixed target origin for outbound messages.\n\n## Impact\n\n- **Content spoofing.** A frame that can `postMessage` to the UI can supply\n arbitrary `fields`/`records`, causing the table to render fabricated rows and\n links (e.g. a phishing `__link_url`) that appear to come from the queried\n portal. (Values are HTML-escaped, so this is display spoofing, not script\n injection \u2014 no XSS.)\n- **Handshake/UX interference.** Because inbound messages matching a pending `id`\n resolve/reject the UI\u0027s MCP requests, an attacker frame can spoof responses to\n the `ui/initialize` handshake or otherwise disrupt the panel.\n- **Outbound leakage.** Posting to `\u0027*\u0027` means the UI\u0027s JSON-RPC messages are\n delivered to whatever the parent origin is; if the resource is ever embedded by\n a context other than the trusted host, those messages leak to it.\n\nExploitability depends on the host embedding model (in a correct MCP Apps host the\nparent is the trusted host, which limits who can message the frame), so this is a\nhardening / defense-in-depth issue rather than a directly remotely-triggerable\none \u2014 hence Low.\n\n## Proof of concept\n\n- `poc/verify-no-origin-check.mjs` \u2014 static confirmation that the listener has no\n origin check and outbound uses `\u0027*\u0027`:\n\n ```\n [x] validates event.origin : NO\n [x] outgoing postMessage targetOrigin : \u0027*\u0027 (any)\n RESULT: VULNERABLE\n ```\n\n- `poc/parent-spoof-poc.html` \u2014 a page that embeds the UI and injects fabricated\n rows cross-origin with no handshake; the UI renders them.\n\n## Remediation\n\n- Validate `event.origin` against the expected host origin on every inbound\n message; drop messages from other origins.\n- Send outbound `postMessage` with an explicit target origin (the host origin\n established at initialize time) instead of `\u0027*\u0027`.\n- Optionally, bind to a nonce/channel established during `ui/initialize` so only\n the negotiated host can drive the panel.",
"id": "GHSA-vqff-r82h-9crc",
"modified": "2026-10-16T19:23:48Z",
"published": "2026-10-16T19:23:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ondata/ckan-mcp-server/security/advisories/GHSA-vqff-r82h-9crc"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ondata/ckan-mcp-server"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "ckan-mcp-server: DataStore Table UI resource does not validate postMessage origin (in) and posts to targetOrigin \"*\" (out)"
}
GHSA-VQMJ-9MFQ-WGJJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:38 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:38Insufficient verification of node certificates in Juniper Networks Junos Space may allow a man-in-the-middle type of attacker to make unauthorized modifications to Space database or add nodes. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos Space all versions prior to 17.1R1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-10624"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-10-13T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Insufficient verification of node certificates in Juniper Networks Junos Space may allow a man-in-the-middle type of attacker to make unauthorized modifications to Space database or add nodes. Affected releases are Juniper Networks Junos Space all versions prior to 17.1R1.",
"id": "GHSA-vqmj-9mfq-wgjj",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:38:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:38:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-10624"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.juniper.net/JSA10826"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/101255"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VR26-PJJX-9GRM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-27 00:31 – Updated: 2025-08-27 15:33In handleBondStateChanged of AdapterService.java, there is a possible permission bypass due to misleading or insufficient UI. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-0092"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-26T23:15:33Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In handleBondStateChanged of AdapterService.java, there is a possible permission bypass due to misleading or insufficient UI. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation.",
"id": "GHSA-vr26-pjjx-9grm",
"modified": "2025-08-27T15:33:14Z",
"published": "2025-08-27T00:31:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0092"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://android.googlesource.com/platform/packages/modules/Bluetooth/+/090ca53cc13c12e3763777a6a3c7367641e9808f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2025-03-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VR4H-G9WJ-2P4G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-29 09:31 – Updated: 2026-05-29 09:31The Contact Form 7 – PayPal & Stripe Add-on plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Payment Bypass via Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in all versions up to, and including, 2.4.9. Although cf7pp_paypal_ipn_handler() correctly validates IPN authenticity by posting back to PayPal with cmd=_notify-validate, it fails to compare the IPN payload's mc_gross (payment amount), mc_currency, or receiver_email fields against the corresponding stored order values before passing the attacker-controlled invoice field directly to cf7pp_complete_payment(), which marks the order completed after only an integer cast with no amount verification. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to mark arbitrary high-value pending orders as fully paid by making a minimal real PayPal payment and crafting an IPN whose invoice parameter references the targeted order, effectively completing purchases without tendering the required payment amount.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-9189"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-29T09:16:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Contact Form 7 \u2013 PayPal \u0026 Stripe Add-on plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Payment Bypass via Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity in all versions up to, and including, 2.4.9. Although `cf7pp_paypal_ipn_handler()` correctly validates IPN authenticity by posting back to PayPal with `cmd=_notify-validate`, it fails to compare the IPN payload\u0027s `mc_gross` (payment amount), `mc_currency`, or `receiver_email` fields against the corresponding stored order values before passing the attacker-controlled `invoice` field directly to `cf7pp_complete_payment()`, which marks the order completed after only an integer cast with no amount verification. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to mark arbitrary high-value pending orders as fully paid by making a minimal real PayPal payment and crafting an IPN whose `invoice` parameter references the targeted order, effectively completing purchases without tendering the required payment amount.",
"id": "GHSA-vr4h-g9wj-2p4g",
"modified": "2026-05-29T09:31:07Z",
"published": "2026-05-29T09:31:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-9189"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/contact-form-7-paypal-add-on/tags/2.4.6/includes/payments/functions.php#L31"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/contact-form-7-paypal-add-on/tags/2.4.6/includes/payments/paypal_handler.php#L106"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/contact-form-7-paypal-add-on/tags/2.4.6/includes/payments/paypal_handler.php#L75"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/contact-form-7-paypal-add-on/tags/2.4.8/includes/payments/functions.php#L31"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/contact-form-7-paypal-add-on/tags/2.4.8/includes/payments/paypal_handler.php#L106"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/contact-form-7-paypal-add-on/tags/2.4.8/includes/payments/paypal_handler.php#L75"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3551197/contact-form-7-paypal-add-on"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/5e274781-1c20-4224-bc10-26dadb9b1e07?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-VR7H-P6MM-WPMH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-22 16:58 – Updated: 2026-09-23 18:14Summary
Using torch.jit.unsupported_tensor_ops.execWrapper function, which is a pytorch library function to execute remote pickle file.
Details
The attack payload executes in the following steps:
First, the attacker craft the payload by calling to torch.jit.unsupported_tensor_ops.execWrapper function in reduce method Then when the victim after checking whether the pickle file is safe by using Picklescan library and this library doesn't dectect any dangerous functions, decide to pickle.load() this malicious pickle file, thus lead to remote code execution.
PoC
import torch.jit.unsupported_tensor_ops as unsupported_tensor_ops
class EvilTorchJitUnsupportedTensorOpsExecWrapper:
def __reduce__(self):
code = '__import__("os").system("whoami")'
glob = {}
loc = {}
return unsupported_tensor_ops.execWrapper, (code, glob, loc)
Impact
Who is impacted? Any organization or individual relying on picklescan to detect malicious pickle files inside PyTorch models. 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.
Corresponding
https://github.com/FredericDT https://github.com/Qhaoduoyu
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 0.0.27"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "picklescan"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.28"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-71370"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-345",
"CWE-502"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-08-22T16:58:06Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nUsing torch.jit.unsupported_tensor_ops.execWrapper function, which is a pytorch library function to execute remote pickle file.\n\n### Details\n\nThe attack payload executes in the following steps:\n\nFirst, the attacker craft the payload by calling to torch.jit.unsupported_tensor_ops.execWrapper function in reduce method\nThen when the victim after checking whether the pickle file is safe by using Picklescan library and this library doesn\u0027t dectect any dangerous functions, decide to pickle.load() this malicious pickle file, thus lead to remote code execution.\n\n### PoC\n\n```\n\nimport torch.jit.unsupported_tensor_ops as unsupported_tensor_ops\n\nclass EvilTorchJitUnsupportedTensorOpsExecWrapper:\n def __reduce__(self):\n code = \u0027__import__(\"os\").system(\"whoami\")\u0027\n glob = {}\n loc = {}\n return unsupported_tensor_ops.execWrapper, (code, glob, loc)\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nWho is impacted? Any organization or individual relying on picklescan to detect malicious pickle files inside PyTorch models.\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### Corresponding\n\nhttps://github.com/FredericDT\nhttps://github.com/Qhaoduoyu",
"id": "GHSA-vr7h-p6mm-wpmh",
"modified": "2026-09-23T18:14:50Z",
"published": "2025-08-22T16:58:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/security/advisories/GHSA-vr7h-p6mm-wpmh"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-71370"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/pull/47"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/commit/7f994d62084fe43f1cffdef2f9bae6923344ef53"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mmaitre314/picklescan/releases/tag/v0.0.28"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/picklescan-remote-code-execution-via-torch-jit-unsupported-tensor-ops-execwrapper"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Picklescan missing detection when calling pytorch function torch.jit.unsupported_tensor_ops.execWrapper"
}
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
CAPEC-141: Cache Poisoning
An attacker exploits the functionality of cache technologies to cause specific data to be cached that aids the attackers' objectives. This describes any attack whereby an attacker places incorrect or harmful material in cache. The targeted cache can be an application's cache (e.g. a web browser cache) or a public cache (e.g. a DNS or ARP cache). Until the cache is refreshed, most applications or clients will treat the corrupted cache value as valid. This can lead to a wide range of exploits including redirecting web browsers towards sites that install malware and repeatedly incorrect calculations based on the incorrect value.
CAPEC-142: DNS Cache Poisoning
A domain name server translates a domain name (such as www.example.com) into an IP address that Internet hosts use to contact Internet resources. An adversary modifies a public DNS cache to cause certain names to resolve to incorrect addresses that the adversary specifies. The result is that client applications that rely upon the targeted cache for domain name resolution will be directed not to the actual address of the specified domain name but to some other address. Adversaries can use this to herd clients to sites that install malware on the victim's computer or to masquerade as part of a Pharming attack.
CAPEC-148: Content Spoofing
An adversary modifies content to make it contain something other than what the original content producer intended while keeping the apparent source of the content unchanged. The term content spoofing is most often used to describe modification of web pages hosted by a target to display the adversary's content instead of the owner's content. However, any content can be spoofed, including the content of email messages, file transfers, or the content of other network communication protocols. Content can be modified at the source (e.g. modifying the source file for a web page) or in transit (e.g. intercepting and modifying a message between the sender and recipient). Usually, the adversary will attempt to hide the fact that the content has been modified, but in some cases, such as with web site defacement, this is not necessary. Content Spoofing can lead to malware exposure, financial fraud (if the content governs financial transactions), privacy violations, and other unwanted outcomes.
CAPEC-218: Spoofing of UDDI/ebXML Messages
An attacker spoofs a UDDI, ebXML, or similar message in order to impersonate a service provider in an e-business transaction. UDDI, ebXML, and similar standards are used to identify businesses in e-business transactions. Among other things, they identify a particular participant, WSDL information for SOAP transactions, and supported communication protocols, including security protocols. By spoofing one of these messages an attacker could impersonate a legitimate business in a transaction or could manipulate the protocols used between a client and business. This could result in disclosure of sensitive information, loss of message integrity, or even financial fraud.
CAPEC-384: Application API Message Manipulation via Man-in-the-Middle
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages. Performing this attack can allow the attacker to gain unauthorized privileges within the application, or conduct attacks such as phishing, deceptive strategies to spread malware, or traditional web-application attacks. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to perform adversary-in-the-middle (CAPEC-94) communications between the web browser and the remote system. Despite the use of AiTH software, the attack is actually directed at the server, as the client is one node in a series of content brokers that pass information along to the application framework. Additionally, it is not true "Adversary-in-the-Middle" attack at the network layer, but an application-layer attack the root cause of which is the master applications trust in the integrity of code supplied by the client.
CAPEC-385: Transaction or Event Tampering via Application API Manipulation
An attacker hosts or joins an event or transaction within an application framework in order to change the content of messages or items that are being exchanged. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that look authentic but may contain deceptive links, substitute one item or another, spoof an existing item and conduct a false exchange, or otherwise change the amounts or identity of what is being exchanged. The techniques require use of specialized software that allow the attacker to man-in-the-middle communications between the web browser and the remote system in order to change the content of various application elements. Often, items exchanged in game can be monetized via sales for coin, virtual dollars, etc. The purpose of the attack is for the attack to scam the victim by trapping the data packets involved the exchange and altering the integrity of the transfer process.
CAPEC-386: Application API Navigation Remapping
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of links/buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains links/buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination. Some applications make navigation remapping more difficult to detect because the actual HREF values of images, profile elements, and links/buttons are masked. One example would be to place an image in a user's photo gallery that when clicked upon redirected the user to an off-site location. Also, traditional web vulnerabilities (such as CSRF) can be constructed with remapped buttons or links. In some cases navigation remapping can be used for Phishing attacks or even means to artificially boost the page view, user site reputation, or click-fraud.
CAPEC-387: Navigation Remapping To Propagate Malicious Content
An adversary manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the content of messages and thereby circumvent the expected application logic.
CAPEC-388: Application API Button Hijacking
An attacker manipulates either egress or ingress data from a client within an application framework in order to change the destination and/or content of buttons displayed to a user within API messages. Performing this attack allows the attacker to manipulate content in such a way as to produce messages or content that looks authentic but contains buttons that point to an attacker controlled destination.
CAPEC-665: Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws
An adversary leverages a firmware weakness within the Thunderbolt protocol, on a computing device to manipulate Thunderbolt controller firmware in order to exploit vulnerabilities in the implementation of authorization and verification schemes within Thunderbolt protection mechanisms. Upon gaining physical access to a target device, the adversary conducts high-level firmware manipulation of the victim Thunderbolt controller SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface) flash, through the use of a SPI Programing device and an external Thunderbolt device, typically as the target device is booting up. If successful, this allows the adversary to modify memory, subvert authentication mechanisms, spoof identities and content, and extract data and memory from the target device. Currently 7 major vulnerabilities exist within Thunderbolt protocol with 9 attack vectors as noted in the Execution Flow.
CAPEC-701: Browser in the Middle (BiTM)
An adversary exploits the inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to establish an unnoticed remote desktop connection in the victim's browser to the adversary's system. The adversary must deploy a web client with a remote desktop session that the victim can access.