CVE-2025-50472VulnerabilityPublished 1 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-50472: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical · fixed in 2.6.2 : patch affected systems as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 71% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.6.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Aug 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 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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately audit all usage of modelscope/ms-swift library in AI/ML workflows and identify any instances of loading `.mdl` checkpoint files from untrusted or external sources. 2. Implement strict validation and integrity checks on all model checkpoint files before loading, such as cryptographic signatures or hashes, to ensure authenticity and integrity. 3. Avoid using `pickle` or any unsafe deserialization methods on untrusted data; consider replacing or wrapping the `load_model_meta()` function to use safer serialization formats like JSON or protobuf with strict schema validation. 4. Restrict file system permissions and access controls to prevent unauthorized users from placing or modifying `.mdl` files in model directories. 5. Monitor and log all model loading activities and anomalous file access patterns to detect potential exploitation attempts. 6. Isolate AI/ML training environments from critical production systems to limit the blast radius of a successful attack. 7. Stay updated with the modelscope/ms-swift project for any forthcoming patches or security advisories and apply them promptly. 8. Educate data scientists and ML engineers about the risks of loading untrusted model checkpoints and enforce secure development practices. 9. Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools capable of detecting suspicious process behaviors indicative of code execution from deserialization.

Description

The modelscope/ms-swift library thru 2.6.1 is vulnerable to arbitrary code execution through deserialization of untrusted data within the `load_model_meta()` function of the `ModelFileSystemCache()` class. Attackers can execute arbitrary code and commands by crafting a malicious serialized `.mdl` payload, exploiting the use of `pickle.load()` on data from potentially untrusted sources. This vulnerability allows for remote code execution (RCE) by deceiving victims into loading a seemingly harmless checkpoint during a normal training process, thereby enabling attackers to execute arbitrary code on the targeted machine. Note that the payload file is a hidden file, making it difficult for the victim to detect tampering. More importantly, during the model training process, after the `.mdl` file is loaded and executes arbitrary code, the normal training process remains unaffected'meaning the user remains unaware of the arbitrary code execution.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk, especially for entities involved in AI research, data science, and machine learning development. The ability to execute arbitrary code remotely can lead to full system compromise, data exfiltration, lateral movement within networks, and persistent backdoors. Confidentiality is at high risk as attackers can access sensitive training data, proprietary models, and intellectual property. Integrity is compromised because attackers can alter model training processes or inject malicious code into AI pipelines, potentially causing erroneous outputs or sabotaged AI models. Availability may also be affected if attackers deploy ransomware or disrupt critical AI services. Given the stealthy nature of the attack, detection and incident response become challenging, increasing the window of exposure. European organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, automotive, and government, which increasingly rely on AI models, are particularly vulnerable. The threat also extends to cloud environments and research institutions where modelscope/ms-swift is used. The absence of a CVSS score and patches means organizations must proactively assess and mitigate the risk to avoid potential exploitation.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Aug 2025, 16:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats