Fickling check_safety() bypass: likely_safe_imports grants module-origin trust to unvalidated standard library callables
CVSS score
8.8
EPSS probability
—
Risk score
0.9
Published
2 h ago
Resmî kaynaklarda yeterli kanıt bulunamadı. Bu sonuç “yama yok” anlamına gelmez.
Impact on My Inventory
Only the personal products you have added to your account are assessed; an organisation's inventory does not appear here.
Checking session…
Vulnerability description
DayBreach AI Explanation
Verified against sourcesSources read
1
Source agreement
Tam uyum
Evidence confidence
%55
Short explanation
The check_safety() mechanism in Trail of Bits fickling through 0.1.12 grants module-origin trust to standard library callables, allowing dangerous calls to be marked as LIKELY_SAFE and leading to arbitrary code execution.
Serving as a security gate, fickling.load() can produce a false sense of security, causing malicious pickle payloads to be deserialized and executed with the privileges of the victim process.
What should be done?
- Follow vendor advisory recommendations
- Review current master branch updates
Chain of evidence and sources
Trail of Bits fickling 0.1.12 ve öncesi sürümlerde check_safety() atlatma zafiyeti bulunmaktadır.
Zafiyet, standart kütüphane çağrılarının modül kökenine güvenilmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır.
Show the technical text from the sources
In Trail of Bits fickling through 0.1.12, the _process_import() method in fickle.py adds an imported name to the likely_safe_imports set whenever the source module is present in sys.stdlib_module_names and the name is absent from the UNSAFE_IMPORTS denylist, without inspecting what the name resolves to or how it behaves. The OvertlyBadEvals analysis pass in analysis.py then unconditionally skips any call whose function name appears in likely_safe_imports, including calls that would otherwise be flagged as overtly dangerous. As a result, any callable reachable through a non-blocked standard library module inherits module-level trust regardless of its own behavior, and check_safety() returns LIKELY_SAFE with zero findings for pickle payloads that reach code execution or file write through such callables. Demonstrated primitives: dataclasses._create_fn, which passes an attacker-controlled function body to exec() and yields arbitrary code execution on Python 3.7 through 3.12 (the internal _create_fn function was removed in Python 3.13); mailcap.findmatch, which internally calls os.system() on a test command taken from an attacker-controlled caps dictionary, yielding arbitrary code execution on Python versions through 3.12 (the mailcap module was removed in Python 3.13); and readline.add_history() followed by readline.write_history_file(), which writes attacker-controlled content to an arbitrary filesystem path (POSIX platforms, where the readline module is available). fickling.load() chains check_safety() into pickle.loads() as an explicit security gate, so a LIKELY_SAFE verdict causes the payload to be deserialized and executed with the privileges of the victim process. The root cause is the inference of callable safety from module origin; it is independent of, and separately fixable from, the dotted __qualname__ resolution weakness tracked as CVE-2026-118938, which this advisory does not address. As of 2026-10-30 the three demonstrated modules were added to UNSAFE_IMPORTS on the vendor master branch (commit d011709) pending release; released versions through 0.1.12 remain affected, and the module-origin trust root cause persists, as demonstrated by the related CVE-2026-118938 remaining exploitable on that same build.
CVSS vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CWE: CWE-693, CWE-502
This explanation was compiled automatically from the source records. Scores, active exploitation, patch and exploit status come straight from the sources.
IMPACT: Affected Products and Software
Affected Products
The following products are affected by CVE-2026-16760 vulnerability. Where our threat engine knows the exact affected versions, they are listed below.
| ID | VENDOR | PRODUCT | ACTION |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | trailofbits | fickling | View |
RED HAT CSAF/VEX: Product Impact Check
SCORING: CVSS from Multiple Sources
CVSS Scores
The Common Vulnerability Scoring System is a standardised framework for assessing the severity of vulnerabilities in software and systems. We collect and display CVSS scores from several sources for each CVE.
| SCORE | VERSION | SEVERITY | VECTOR | SOURCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.8 | CVSS V31 | HIGH | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | NVD |
| 8.8 | CVSS V3_1 | HIGH | CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H | CVE CNA |
Patch and Remediation Guide
Solution & Remediation Advisory
İncelenen resmî kaynaklarda yama durumu doğrulanamadı. Bu sonuç “yama yok” anlamına gelmez.
Public exploit and active exploitation status
Verified exploit intelligence
No verified public PoC, exploit repository or Metasploit module has been found for this CVE yet.
Weakness Classification and Attack Patterns (CWE & CAPEC)
CWE - Common Weakness Enumeration
While CVE identifies specific instances of vulnerabilities, CWE categorises the common flaws or weaknesses that can lead to vulnerabilities. CVE-2026-16760 is associated with the following CWEs:
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC) stores attack patterns, which are descriptions of the common attributes and approaches employed by adversaries to exploit the CVE-2026-16760 weaknesses.
Attack Vector and Accessibility
Official Sources and Advisories
CVSS Vector Radar Chart
8.8 / 10Vulnerability Scoring Details
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HYama durumu bilinmiyor
Weakness Type (CWE & CAPEC)
Similar Vulnerabilities
Get this vulnerability through the API
Affected products, version ranges, exploitation status and patch information in a single request, with a free key.
curl -H "x-api-key: $DAYBREACH_API_KEY" \ "https://api.daybreach.dev/api/v1/intel/cves/CVE-2026-16760"