trailofbits CVE Vulnerabilities & Metrics

In Trail of Bits fickling versions up to and including 0.1.11, the UnsafeImportsML analysis pass unconditionally calls AnalysisContext.shorten_code(node) on every import node it inspects, regardless of whether the import is flagged as unsafe. This call registers the shortened code representation in the shared AnalysisContext.reported_shortened_code set. When the MLAllowlist analysis pass subsequently runs, it calls the same shorten_code() method, receives already_reported=True for every import, and executes a continue statement that skips its allowlist check entirely. This renders MLAllowlist dead code for all imports — it never evaluates whether an import is in the ML allowlist or not. The MLAllowlist pass was designed to catch imports of modules outside the known-safe ML ecosystem (torch, numpy, transformers, etc.) that slip past the UnsafeImports denylist. With MLAllowlist inoperative, any standard library module not in the UNSAFE_IMPORTS denylist can be invoked via pickle deserialization while fickling's check_safety() returns LIKELY_SAFE. The fickling.load() API chains check_safety() into pickle.loads() as an explicit security gate, meaning a LIKELY_SAFE verdict causes the payload to be deserialized and executed. The root cause is shared mutable state between independently-correct analysis passes — UnsafeImportsML works as designed in isolation, MLAllowlist works as designed in isolation, but the shared reported_shortened_code set causes UnsafeImportsML to poison MLAllowlist's deduplication logic.

Trail of Bits fickling versions up to and including 0.1.10 do not include the Python standard library modules _posixsubprocess, site, and atexit in the UNSAFE_IMPORTS denylist (fickle.py). Because these modules are absent from the denylist, fickling's check_safety() function returns LIKELY_SAFE with zero findings for pickle payloads that invoke dangerous functions including _posixsubprocess.fork_exec (C-level process spawner capable of executing arbitrary binaries), site.execsitecustomize (executes arbitrary site customization code), and atexit._run_exitfuncs (triggers all registered exit handler callbacks). The fickling.load() API chains check_safety() into pickle.loads() as an explicit security gate; a LIKELY_SAFE verdict causes the payload to be deserialized and executed. This shares the same root cause as CVE-2026-22607 (cProfile), CVE-2025-67748 (pty), and CVE-2025-67747 (marshal/types). OvertlyBadEvals does not flag these modules because they are standard library imports. UnsafeImports does not flag them because they are not in the denylist. The UnusedVariables heuristic is defeated by the SETITEMS opcode pattern.

Fickling is a Python pickling decompiler and static analyzer. Prior to version 0.1.7, Fickling is vulnerable to detection bypass due to "builtins" blindness. This issue has been patched in version 0.1.7.

Fickling is a Python pickling decompiler and static analyzer. Prior to version 0.1.7, the unsafe_imports() method in Fickling's static analyzer fails to flag several high-risk Python modules that can be used for arbitrary code execution. Malicious pickles importing these modules will not be detected as unsafe, allowing attackers to bypass Fickling's primary static safety checks. This issue has been patched in version 0.1.7.

Fickling is a Python pickling decompiler and static analyzer. Prior to version 0.1.7, both ctypes and pydoc modules aren't explicitly blocked. Even other existing pickle scanning tools (like picklescan) do not block pydoc.locate. Chaining these two together can achieve RCE while the scanner still reports the file as LIKELY_SAFE. This issue has been patched in version 0.1.7.

Fickling is a Python pickling decompiler and static analyzer. Fickling versions up to and including 0.1.6 do not treat Python's cProfile module as unsafe. Because of this, a malicious pickle that uses cProfile.run() is classified as SUSPICIOUS instead of OVERTLY_MALICIOUS. If a user relies on Fickling's output to decide whether a pickle is safe to deserialize, this misclassification can lead them to execute attacker-controlled code on their system. This affects any workflow or product that uses Fickling as a security gate for pickle deserialization. This issue has been patched in version 0.1.7.

Fickling is a Python pickling decompiler and static analyzer. Fickling versions up to and including 0.1.6 do not treat Python’s runpy module as unsafe. Because of this, a malicious pickle that uses runpy.run_path() or runpy.run_module() is classified as SUSPICIOUS instead of OVERTLY_MALICIOUS. If a user relies on Fickling’s output to decide whether a pickle is safe to deserialize, this misclassification can lead them to execute attacker-controlled code on their system. This affects any workflow or product that uses Fickling as a security gate for pickle deserialization. This issue has been patched in version 0.1.7.

uthenticode is a small cross-platform library for partially verifying Authenticode digital signatures. Versions of uthenticode prior to the 2.x series did not check Extended Key Usages in certificates, in violation of the Authenticode X.509 certificate profile. As a result, a malicious user could produce a "signed" PE file that uthenticode would verify and consider valid using an X.509 certificate that isn't entitled to produce code signatures (e.g., a SSL certificate). By design, uthenticode does not perform full-chain validation. However, the absence of EKU validation was an unintended oversight. The 2.0.0 release series includes EKU checks. There are no workarounds to this vulnerability.

uthenticode is a small cross-platform library for partially verifying Authenticode digital signatures. Version 1.0.9 of uthenticode hashed the entire file rather than hashing sections by virtual address, in violation of the Authenticode specification. As a result, an attacker could modify code within a binary without changing its Authenticode hash, making it appear valid from uthenticode's perspective. Versions of uthenticode prior to 1.0.9 are not vulnerable to this attack, nor are versions in the 2.x series. By design, uthenticode does not perform full-chain validation. However, the malleability of signature verification introduced in 1.0.9 was an unintended oversight. The 2.x series addresses the vulnerability. Versions prior to 1.0.9 are also not vulnerable, but users are encouraged to upgrade rather than downgrade. There are no workarounds to this vulnerability.