VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2026

CVE-2026-113720: virtualenv · Seeded files retain permissions from an older cache

Affects conda-lockSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-113720· Medium 4.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.4 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 07:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

4.4Medium

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

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Passive
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: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
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

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewconda-lock`pkg:brew/conda-lock`Other threats	Affected >=2.5.5	Fixed in–

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

Description

## Summary The app-data copy seeder uses shutil.copy, which preserves cached file modes independently of the current umask. A cache populated under permissive permissions can therefore produce files with wider access in later environments. Anthropic's OSS Scanner reported this as `ANT-2026-487MH6OW` in `virtualenv-20261015-005`, received on 15 October 2026. ## Affected area Permissions of files copied from app-data into a new environment. ## Attacker-controlled input The cache must contain files created with broader permissions than the current environment creator intends. Another account must also be able to traverse the new environment and reach those files. A private parent directory prevents that access. No control of a private live cache is assumed. ## Affected code The relevant 21.14.8 source is in [copy helpers](https://github.com/pypa/virtualenv/blob/a795ab116356afde11039cf2763d77e8a06da738/src/virtualenv/util/path/_sync.py). ## Mechanism The default app-data seeder extracts a wheel into a reusable cache and copies its files into later environments with `shutil.copy()`. That function applies the cached source mode to each destination file after creating it, overriding the current run's umask. If the cache image was built under umask `000`, a later environment created under umask `022` can receive mode-`0666` pip files. The cache may be private while the new environment is reachable by other local accounts. ## Reproduction and evidence The scanner created two histories with separate private app-data caches. In the control, the owner's first run used umask `022`; a later environment had no files writable by another account, and that account could not append to `pip/__init__.py`. In the attack history, the first run used umask `000` and the later run still used `022`. The report counted 478 of 493 environment files writable by others. A second unprivileged uid appended a line to pip, and `bin/pip --version` ran it as the environment owner. The cache itself remained under a mode-`0700` home in both histories. An attacker cannot force the owner's earlier umask through this finding; the attack also needs a traversable destination. A mode-`002` cache can expose group write access under suitable group permissions. The scanner dates app-data copy seeding to #1578, first released in 20.0.2. [PR #3425](https://github.com/pypa/virtualenv/pull/3425) creates copied files under a fixed non-writable-by-others policy further restricted by the current umask. ## Attack sequence ```mermaid sequenceDiagram participant U as Environment owner participant C as Private app-data cache participant E as Later environment participant A as Other local account U->>C: first seed extraction under umask 000 C-->>U: cached pip files have mode 0666 U->>E: create environment under umask 022 C->>E: shutil.copy reapplies mode 0666 A->>E: append code to pip/__init__.py U->>E: run bin/pip --version E-->>U: appended code runs as owner ``` ## Reproducer files The following files are from the scanner report for `ANT-2026-487MH6OW`. They were tested against commit `a857a7823c73` in the scanner image. The `repro` entrypoint expects companion files under `/tmp/repro.d`; cases that change user IDs need a disposable root-capable container. The last output line is `BUG` when the reported behavior occurs. These files are included as evidence and were not rerun for this advisory update. **`repro`** ```text #!/usr/bin/env python3 import glob import os import shutil import stat import subprocess import sys from pathlib import Path sys.stdout.reconfigure(line_buffering=True) # keep these lines in order with those of the child processes os.umask(0o022) # for the directories made here as root OWNER, OTHER_USER = 1000, 65534 # root is only needed to switch to these two unprivileged uids VIRTUALENV = ["virtualenv", "--quiet", "--no-periodic-update"] # default seeder; no network for the update check # read here, as root: /tmp/repro.d need not be readable by the other user ATTACK = Path("/tmp/repro.d/other_user_appends_to_pip.py").read_text() def run_as_owner(command, home, umask): environ = {"HOME": str(home), "PATH": os.environ["PATH"]} subprocess.run(command, user=OWNER, group=OWNER, extra_groups=[], umask=umask, env=environ, cwd=home, check=True) def mode(path): return stat.filemode(os.stat(path).st_mode) work = Path("/tmp/seed-mode-repro") shutil.rmtree(work, ignore_errors=True) work.mkdir() proofs = work / "proofs" proofs.mkdir() proofs.chmod(0o777) # the other user's line writes the uid it runs as in here writable_by_others, appended_line_ran_as = {}, {} # the two histories differ only in the umask of the owner's earlier run, the one that fills ~/.cache/virtualenv for case, umask_of_earlier_run in [("CONTROL", 0o022), ("OBSERVED", 0o000)]: # set up: the owner's home, and with it the cache, is private; the project folder is reachable by path home = work / f"{

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…