CVE-2025-6101
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability classified as critical has been found in letta-ai letta up to 0.4.1. Affected is the function function_message of the file letta/letta/interface.py. The manipulation of the argument function_name/function_args leads to improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceA code injection vulnerability exists in letta-ai letta up to version 0.4.1 where the function_message function in letta/letta/interface.py improperly handles the function_name and function_args parameters. These arguments are passed to dynamic code evaluation (likely eval() or similar) without sanitization, allowing an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary Python code.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check installed letta versionRun 'pip show letta' or 'pip list | grep letta' to see the installed version numberAffected if Version is 0.4.1 or lower (any version up to and including 0.4.1 is affected)
-
Locate the vulnerable source fileFind the file letta/letta/interface.py in the installed package location (pip show letta reveals the path)Affected if The file exists and contains the function_message function
-
Inspect function_message for dynamic code evaluationOpen letta/letta/interface.py and search for the function_message function definition. Look for usage of eval() or exec() within this functionAffected if The function contains eval() or exec() calls that process function_name or function_args parameters
-
Verify user input can reach the vulnerable functionTrace how function_name and function_args parameters flow into function_message - check if they come from API requests, user configuration, or external input sourcesAffected if Untrusted user input can reach the eval/exec call without sanitization
You are affected if letta version is 0.4.1 or lower AND the function_message function in letta/letta/interface.py uses eval/exec to process function_name or function_args without sanitization.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataReplace dynamic code evaluation (eval/exec) with safe alternatives such as ast.literal_eval for arguments or a dictionary-based function lookup pattern. Implement strict allowlist validation for function names.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,728.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6101 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-6101 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data