Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- Exploitation requires an existing local or physical foothold with privileges.
- EPSS is 0.39% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | python-rply | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 0.7.4-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | python-rply | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 0.7.4-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | python-rply | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 0.7.4-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | python-rply | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 0.7.4-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 23 Oct 2026 |
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| piprply | < 0.7.4 | 0.7.4 | GitHub advisory ↗github reviewed aggregator · 26 Oct 2024 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verifiedpython-rply before 0.7.4 insecurely creates temporary files.
python-rply before 0.7.4 insecurely creates temporary files.
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
python-rply before 0.7.4 insecurely creates temporary files.
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-59: Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following'). The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 21 Nov 2019 · Last source change 6 Aug 2024, 09:58 UTC · CWE-59 · Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.