Focus on trailofbits vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 16 Jan 2026, 23:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with trailofbits. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.
For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.
Total trailofbits CVEs: 7
Earliest CVE date: 09 Aug 2023, 16:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 10 Jan 2026, 02:15 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2026-22612
30-day Count (Rolling): 5
365-day Count (Rolling): 5
Calendar-based Variation
Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.
Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%
Average CVSS: 0.0
Max CVSS: 0
Critical CVEs (≥9): 0
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 7 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 0 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 0 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for trailofbits, sorted by severity first and recency.
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.