CVE-2026-118938
Description
A flaw was found in fickling. This vulnerability allows an attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution by bypassing security analysis when processing serialized Python pickle files. Due to improper inspection of dotted attribute paths, fickling fails to recognize dangerous method references as executable calls and incorrectly classifies malicious payloads as safe. An attacker can exploit this issue by supplying a crafted pickle file, leading to the execution of arbitrary commands when the file is loaded.
Statement
This vulnerability is rated as an Important severity impact because successful exploitation permits arbitrary code execution in the context of the user or process evaluating serialized artifacts. While Red Hat OpenShift AI includes fickling within select container notebook images to analyze machine learning models, an attacker cannot trigger this remotely without tricking a user or workflow into inspecting and loading an untrusted serialized payload. Because the safety analysis serves as a verification barrier, this bypass effectively neutralizes the protection mechanism against malicious code embedded in pickle files.
Mitigation
upgrade fickling once a fixed release is published and verified; do not rely on check_safety() LIKELY_SAFE verdicts for payloads with dotted __qualname__ STACK_GLOBAL operands; avoid loading untrusted pickle artifacts.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7.8 | N/A | 8.8 |
| Attack Vector | Local | N/A | Network |
| Attack Complexity | Low | N/A | Low |
| Privileges Required | None | N/A | None |
| User Interaction | Required | N/A | Required |
| Scope | Unchanged | N/A | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality | High | N/A | High |
| Integrity Impact | High | N/A | High |
| Availability Impact | High | N/A | High |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Integrity
Technical Impact: Modify Application Data; Unexpected State
Attackers can modify unexpected objects or data that was assumed to be safe from modification. Deserialized data or code could be modified without using the provided accessor functions, or unexpected functions could be invoked.
Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
If a function is making an assumption on when to terminate, based on a sentry in a string, it could easily never terminate.
Other
Technical Impact: Varies by Context
The consequences can vary widely, because it depends on which objects or methods are being deserialized, and how they are used. Making an assumption that the code in the deserialized object is valid is dangerous and can enable exploitation. One example is attackers using gadget chains to perform unauthorized actions, such as generating a shell.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
