CVE-2025-5120VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jul 2025Updated 28 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-5120: huggingface/smolagents · Improper Control of Generation of Code

Affects huggingface/smolagentsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · 26% EPSS · CVSS 7.6 High : upgrade to 1.17.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.6High

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

EPSS: 26.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 97% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.17.0

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:L

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

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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Jul 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 2026-10-26.

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

Upgrade huggingface/smolagents to 1.17.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubhuggingface/smolagents`pkg:github/huggingface/smolagents`Other threats	Affected >=1.14.0 <1.17.0	Fixed in 1.17.0

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

AI-suggested

Mitigation requires immediate upgrade of huggingface/smolagents to version 1.17.0 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Organizations should audit their use of the local_python_executor.py module and restrict its usage to trusted code only. Implement strict input validation and sandboxing policies beyond the library’s default controls, possibly leveraging containerization or OS-level sandboxing to add defense-in-depth. Monitor logs for unusual execution patterns or attempts to invoke whitelisted modules/functions in unexpected ways. Employ network segmentation to limit exposure of systems running vulnerable versions. User training to recognize and avoid social engineering attempts that could trigger the vulnerability is critical. Additionally, organizations should maintain an inventory of AI/ML tools in use and ensure timely patch management processes are in place for such dependencies.

Description

A sandbox escape vulnerability was identified in huggingface/smolagents version 1.14.0, allowing attackers to bypass the restricted execution environment and achieve remote code execution (RCE). The vulnerability stems from the local_python_executor.py module, which inadequately restricts Python code execution despite employing static and dynamic checks. Attackers can exploit whitelisted modules and functions to execute arbitrary code, compromising the host system. This flaw undermines the core security boundary intended to isolate untrusted code, posing risks such as unauthorized code execution, data leakage, and potential integration-level compromise. The issue is resolved in version 1.17.0.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability is substantial, especially for those leveraging huggingface/smolagents in AI, machine learning, or automation workflows. The ability to escape the sandbox and execute arbitrary code remotely can lead to severe confidentiality breaches, exposing sensitive data processed or stored within the environment. Integrity of data and systems can be compromised, potentially allowing attackers to alter or corrupt data, inject malicious payloads, or pivot to other internal systems. Availability may also be affected if attackers disrupt services or deploy ransomware. Given the increasing adoption of AI tools in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure across Europe, exploitation could have cascading effects on business operations and regulatory compliance, including GDPR violations due to data leakage. The requirement for user interaction suggests phishing or social engineering could be vectors, increasing risk in environments with less stringent user training or controls.

CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #10OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Architecture and Design · Refactoring
Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
Architecture and Design
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product.
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
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.2.8 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating User-Controlled Variables (opens in a new tab)
Code 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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Aug 2025, 01:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-94

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats