VulnerabilityPublished 3 Mar 2025Updated 29 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-1889: mmaitre314 picklescan · Reliance on File Name or Extension of Externally-Supplied File

Affects mmaitre314 picklescanSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 0.0.22 : update mmaitre314 picklescan when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.0.22

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Mar 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIpicklescan`pkg:pypi/picklescan`Other threats	Affected =0.0.1	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade picklescan to version 0.0.22 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed by expanding the scope of file extensions scanned.
Implement additional validation mechanisms that do not rely solely on file extensions, such as inspecting file headers or magic bytes to confirm file type before processing.
Employ strict input validation and sandboxing when loading pickle files to limit the impact of potential malicious payloads.
Educate users and developers about the risks of opening pickle files from untrusted sources, emphasizing the need for caution with files having non-standard extensions.
Integrate multi-layered security controls such as endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to detect anomalous behavior resulting from malicious pickle execution.
Regularly audit and monitor machine learning pipelines and data ingestion workflows for unauthorized or suspicious files.
Consider alternative serialization formats with safer security profiles where feasible, such as JSON or protobuf, to reduce reliance on pickle files.
Establish incident response procedures specific to code execution attacks originating from serialized data files.

Description

picklescan before 0.0.22 only considers standard pickle file extensions in the scope for its vulnerability scan. An attacker could craft a malicious model that uses Pickle and include a malicious pickle file with a non-standard file extension. Because the malicious pickle file inclusion is not considered as part of the scope of picklescan, the file would pass security checks and appear to be safe, when it could instead prove to be problematic.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-1889 is primarily on the security of machine learning and data science environments that utilize Python pickle files and rely on picklescan for security scanning. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution, compromising the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data and systems. This could result in unauthorized data access, data manipulation, or further lateral movement within networks. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect system availability, the downstream effects of a compromise could disrupt operations or lead to data breaches. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on AI and data science, such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing, may face increased risk. The requirement for user interaction means social engineering or phishing could be used to deliver the malicious file. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often target unpatched systems. Failure to update picklescan or implement additional validation controls could leave organizations exposed to this vulnerability.

CWE-646Reliance on File Name or Extension of Externally-Supplied File (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows a file to be uploaded, but it relies on the file name or extension of the file to determine the appropriate behaviors. This could be used by attackers to cause the file to be misclassified and processed in a dangerous fashion.
Architecture and Design
Make decisions on the server side based on file content and not on file name or extension.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.12.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Dec 2025, 23:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-646

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats