CVE-2026-109956VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

safety · NLTK: WekaClassifier passes an unvalidated caller-controlled model path to the weka JVM, bypassing nltk.pathsec

Affects safetySource GCVE Database

Compare

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-109956· High 8.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High : upgrade to 3.8.1_3 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 07:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.3High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 4.0	8.3
CNA (VulnCheck)	CVSS 3.1	7.0

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.8.1_3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
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: 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 Vulnerable System.
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: 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 Vulnerable System 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 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

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CISA SSVC: proof of concept public
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

CVE ID reserved
by VulnCheck
13 Oct 202611:25 UTC, 2 hours before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
13 Oct 202613:27 UTC, t = 0
CISA SSVC assessment
proof of concept public
26 Oct 202619:46 UTC, 13 days after disclosure
In Threat Radar
record ingested
26 Oct 202619:57 UTC, 13 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA SSVC, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 safety to 3.8.1_3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewsafety`pkg:brew/safety`Other threats	Affected >=3.3.1 <3.8.1_3	Fixed in 3.8.1_3

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

Description

## Summary `WekaClassifier` in NLTK passes a caller-controlled model file path to the weka Java VM without any `nltk.pathsec` validation. `WekaClassifier.train` puts the caller's `model_filename` verbatim into the weka argv `["-d", model_filename, ...]` (weka *writes* the trained model there), and `WekaClassifier._classify_many` puts `self._model` into `["-l", self._model, ...]` (weka *reads* it). Under `nltk.pathsec.ENFORCE=True` (the default on current HEAD), NLTK's stated invariant — established by advisory CVE-2026-81726 / GHSA-8mgp-746c-j5xp — is that caller-controlled model-artifact paths must be bounded to the allowed NLTK data roots before any native tool opens them. `WekaClassifier` is the one `java()`-based tool wrapper that skips this entirely, giving an untrusted workflow arbitrary-location file **write** (`-d`) and an arbitrary file **read/parse oracle** (`-l`), defeating pathsec containment. This is a standalone, unfixed variant of the same class as CVE-2026-81726, on a code path the CVE-2026-81726 fix never touched. That advisory enumerates 6 functions (`TransitionParser.train`, `TransitionParser.parse`, `AveragedPerceptron.save`, `AveragedPerceptron.load`, `PerceptronTagger.save_to_json`, `save_maxent_params`) — `WekaClassifier` is not among them, and weka.py contains no `validate_tool_path`/`validate_model_resource` at all. ## Root Cause `WekaClassifier.train(cls, model_filename, ...)` builds `cmd = [javaclass, "-d", model_filename, "-t", train_filename]` (nltk/classify/weka.py:256) and `WekaClassifier._classify_many` builds `[..., "-l", self._model, "-T", <staged>, ...]` (weka.py:131-133); `self._model` is stored unvalidated in `__init__` (weka.py:108-110). Only the internally-generated `train.arff`/`test.arff` are staged via `make_staging_dir`; the model path is passed as-is. `nltk.internals.java()` (internals.py:388-431) validates the classpath (`_verify_jar_sandbox`), the JVM launcher options (`_validate_java_options`, the CVE-2026-12841 fix), the main-class token `cmd[0]`, and rejects `@argfile` tokens in any position — but it explicitly permits program arguments starting with `-` and never inspects the interior of a program-arg path value. So `-d <path>` / `-l <path>` flow unchecked to `subprocess.Popen(final_cmd, shell=False)` and the weka JVM performs an unbounded native open/write on the caller-chosen path. Sibling wrappers prove the intended pattern: `CRFTagger.train`/`set_model_file` call `validate_tool_path` (crf.py:134,300); `MaltParser.generate_malt_command` validates `-i`/`-o` via `validate_tool_path` (malt.py:340,344), its model via `validate_model_resource` (malt.py:326) and `working_dir` via `validate_path` (malt.py:206). weka.py already uses pathsec elsewhere (`validate_path` for WEKAHOME, `pathsec_open` for ARFF writes) but never for the model path. ## Impact Under `pathsec.ENFORCE=True` (default on HEAD), an untrusted workflow that chooses the weka model save/load path obtains: - Arbitrary-location file **write** via `-d` — overwrite or create a file at an attacker-chosen absolute or `..`-traversal path outside the allowed NLTK data roots (content constrained to weka's serialized-model format; the target choice is the integrity impact). This corrupts/clobbers arbitrary chosen files. - Arbitrary file **read/parse oracle** via `-l` — weka loads an out-of-root path as a model, yielding an existence/parse differential (file content is not echoed back → confidentiality impact is limited). This defeats the pathsec containment advisory CVE-2026-81726 promises, at the same privilege level / threat model that advisory was accepted under. ## Proof of Concept ```python import nltk.pathsec as ps; ps.ENFORCE = True from nltk.classify.weka import WekaClassifier # write-side: model written OUTSIDE any allowed NLTK data root (refused for CRFTagger, allowed here) WekaClassifier.train("/tmp/outside_sandbox/evil.model", [({"a": 1}, "pos"), ({"a": 0}, "neg")]) # read-side: -l opens an arbitrary path clf = WekaClassifier(fmt, "/home/victim/secret.model") clf.classify_many([{"a": 1}]) ``` The argv construction — the vulnerable step — is confirmed without weka installed (see Bypass Evidence); a configured weka.jar is needed only to observe the JVM's actual file I/O. ## Attack Chain 1. **Entry.** Action: an app running with `pathsec.ENFORCE=True` lets an untrusted workflow choose the weka model path and calls `WekaClassifier.train("../../../home/victim/x", featuresets)` (write) or `WekaClassifier(fmt, "/home/victim/secret.model").classify_many(...)` (read). Guard: none — plain classmethod/constructor parameter (weka.py:230,108-110). Bypass proof: grep shows weka.py uses no `validate_tool_path`/`validate_model_resource`/`validate_tool_dir` (NONE). 2. **Command build.** Action: the path is placed into `cmd = [javaclass, "-d", model_filename, "-t", train_filename]` (weka.py:256) / `["-l", self._model, ...]`. Guard: only the internally-generated `train.arff` is staged v

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats