CVE-2025-71342
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 · uneditedpicklescan before 0.0.30 fails to detect malicious pickle files using idlelib.run.Executive.runcode in reduce methods. Attackers can embed undetected code in pickle files that executes during pickle.load, enabling remote code execution in PyTorch models and supply chain attacks.
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 · high confidencepicklescan before 0.0.30 fails to detect malicious pickle files that use idlelib.run.Executive.runcode within __reduce__ methods. This specific bypass technique allows attacker-constructed pickle payloads to evade the scanner's detection logic. When a victim calls pickle.load() on a specially crafted pickle file containing this bypass, the embedded code executes during deserialization, enabling remote code execution in applications that load PyTorch models or other pickled objects from untrusted sources.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Verify picklescan is installedRun `pip show picklescan` or check your dependency files (requirements.txt, Pipfile, pyproject.toml)Affected if picklescan is not present in your environment
-
Identify the installed version of picklescanRun `pip show picklescan | grep Version` or inspect your lock files (Pipfile.lock, poetry.lock, or package-lock.json)Affected if the version is below 0.0.30 (e.g., 0.0.29, 0.0.28, etc.) or no version is listed and the package is present
-
Confirm the bypass detection gap existsIf you have an older version, test picklescan against a pickle file using idlelib.run.Executive.runcode in a __reduce__ method to see if it flags the file as maliciousAffected if the scanner does not detect this specific evasion technique
You are affected if picklescan is installed and its version is below 0.0.30, meaning it lacks detection for the idlelib.run.Executive.runcode bypass in malicious pickle files.
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.
dbcve · scopedUpgrade picklescan to version 0.0.30 or later to obtain the updated detection signatures. Additionally, avoid loading pickle files from untrusted sources and consider using safer deserialization alternatives or sandboxed environments for unpickling operations.
picklescan 0.0.30
- Upgrade picklescan to version 0.0.30 or later using your package manager (e.g., pip install picklescan>=0.0.30)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-71342 — 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-2025-71342 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