-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-5271
•
published on April 1, 2026
pymanager included the current working directory in sys.path meaning modules could be shadowed by modules in the current working directory. As a result, if a user executes a pymanager-generated command (e.g., pip, pytest)
from an attacker-controlled directory, a malicious module in that
directory can be imported and executed instead of the intended package.
-
CVE-2026-34430
•
published on April 1, 2026
ByteDance DeerFlow versions prior to commit 92c7a20 contain a sandbox escape vulnerability in bash tool handling that allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the host system by bypassing regex-based validation using shell features such as directory changes and relative paths. Attackers can exploit the incomplete shell semantics modeling to read and modify files outside the sandbox boundary and achieve arbitrary command execution through subprocess invocation with shell interpretation enabled.
-
CVE-2026-34430
•
published on April 1, 2026
ByteDance DeerFlow versions prior to commit 92c7a20 contain a sandbox escape vulnerability in bash tool handling that allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the host system by bypassing regex-based validation using shell features such as directory changes and relative paths. Attackers can exploit the incomplete shell semantics modeling to read and modify files outside the sandbox boundary and achieve arbitrary command execution through subprocess invocation with shell interpretation enabled.
-
CVE-2026-34430
•
published on April 1, 2026
ByteDance DeerFlow versions prior to commit 92c7a20 contain a sandbox escape vulnerability in bash tool handling that allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the host system by bypassing regex-based validation using shell features such as directory changes and relative paths. Attackers can exploit the incomplete shell semantics modeling to read and modify files outside the sandbox boundary and achieve arbitrary command execution through subprocess invocation with shell interpretation enabled.
-
CVE-2026-34430
•
published on April 1, 2026
ByteDance DeerFlow versions prior to commit 92c7a20 contain a sandbox escape vulnerability in bash tool handling that allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the host system by bypassing regex-based validation using shell features such as directory changes and relative paths. Attackers can exploit the incomplete shell semantics modeling to read and modify files outside the sandbox boundary and achieve arbitrary command execution through subprocess invocation with shell interpretation enabled.
-
CVE-2026-34430
•
published on April 1, 2026
ByteDance DeerFlow versions prior to commit 92c7a20 contain a sandbox escape vulnerability in bash tool handling that allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands on the host system by bypassing regex-based validation using shell features such as directory changes and relative paths. Attackers can exploit the incomplete shell semantics modeling to read and modify files outside the sandbox boundary and achieve arbitrary command execution through subprocess invocation with shell interpretation enabled.
