VulnerabilityPublished 14 Aug 2025Updated 26 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-50817: Python-Future · Command Injection

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 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 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Enforce strict file system permissions to prevent untrusted users or processes from writing files to directories included in Python's sys.path, especially those containing python-future. 2) Review and harden the Python application's environment by minimizing directories in sys.path to only trusted locations, avoiding inclusion of writable or user-controlled directories. 3) Employ application whitelisting and integrity monitoring to detect unauthorized creation or modification of files such as test.py in relevant directories. 4) Conduct code audits and dependency reviews to understand where python-future is used and assess the risk exposure. 5) Educate developers and system administrators about Python's import mechanics and the security implications of module loading behaviors. 6) Where feasible, isolate Python applications in containers or sandboxes with restricted filesystem access to limit the impact of any arbitrary code execution. 7) Monitor logs and alerts for suspicious file creation or import activity related to test.py or similar files. 8) Stay updated with vendor advisories or community updates in case patches or mitigations become available. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling the environment and filesystem permissions that enable exploitation of this specific import behavior.

Description

A vulnerability in the Python-Future 1.0.0 module allows for arbitrary code execution via the unintended import of a file named test.py. When the module is loaded, it automatically imports test.py, if present in the same directory or in the sys.path. This behavior can be exploited by an attacker who has the ability to write files to the server, allowing the execution of arbitrary code. NOTE: Multiple third parties have disputed this issue and stated that it is not a security flaw in python-future and is a documented feature of Python’s import system in the handling of sys.path.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on their use of the python-future module and the security posture of their Python application environments. Organizations running Python applications that include python-future and allow untrusted users or processes to write files to directories in sys.path could be at risk of arbitrary code execution, potentially leading to unauthorized access, data leakage, or system compromise. The confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data could be affected, especially if the compromised process has access to critical business logic or data stores. However, the requirement for an attacker to have write access to the filesystem and the need for user interaction to trigger the import reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation. The medium severity rating reflects this balance. European organizations in sectors with high reliance on Python-based applications—such as financial services, technology, research institutions, and government agencies—should be particularly attentive. Additionally, organizations with multi-tenant environments or shared hosting where file write permissions are not strictly controlled may face increased risk. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests that the threat is currently theoretical or low in prevalence, but the potential for exploitation remains if environmental controls are lax.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (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 27 Sep 2025, 00:23 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats