Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 12.88% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2021
CVE-2021-42574High confidence
Adversaries can leverage this to encode source code for compilers accepting Unicode such that targeted vulnerabilities are introduced invisibly to human reviewers
Unknown · Unknown
8.3HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Mitigation availableHigh technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Critical, raised one band.upgradedsince 4 Aug 2024
Compensating controls
- Apply the linked authoritative mitigation while planning the permanent fix.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Unknown Unknown and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
7 package statesRelease-specific package status
Alpine, Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine v3.23v3.23 · main | rust | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.56.1-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 3 Oct 2026 |
| Alpine v3.22v3.22 · main | rust | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.56.1-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 3 Oct 2026 |
| Alpine v3.21v3.21 · main | rust | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.56.1-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 3 Oct 2026 |
| Debian trixietrixie · source | rustc | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.57.0+dfsg1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | rustc | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.57.0+dfsg1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | rustc | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.57.0+dfsg1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | rustc | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.57.0+dfsg1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Mitigation available01
What, why and how
An issue was discovered in the Bidirectional Algorithm in the Unicode Specification through 14.0. It permits the visual reordering of characters via control sequences, which can be used to craft source code that renders different logic than the logical ordering of tokens ingested by compilers and interpreters. Adversaries can leverage this to encode source code for compilers accepting Unicode such that targeted vulnerabilities are introduced invisibly to human reviewers. NOTE: the Unicode Consortium offers the following alternative approach to presenting this concern. An issue is noted in the nature of international text that can affect applications that implement support for The Unicode Standard and the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm (all versions). Due to text display behavior when text includes left-to-right and right-to-left characters, the visual order of tokens may be different from their logical order. Additionally, control characters needed to fully support the requirements of bidirectional text can further obfuscate the logical order of tokens. Unless mitigated, an adversary could craft source code such that the ordering of tokens perceived by human reviewers does not match what will be processed by a compiler/interpreter/etc. The Unicode Consortium has documented this class of vulnerability in its document, Unicode Technical Report #36, Unicode Security Considerations. The Unicode Consortium also provides guidance on mitigations for this class of issues in Unicode Technical Standard #39, Unicode Security Mechanisms, and in Unicode Standard Annex #31, Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax. Also, the BIDI specification allows applications to tailor the implementation in ways that can mitigate misleading visual reordering in program text; see HL4 in Unicode Standard Annex #9, Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm.
What
An issue was discovered in the Bidirectional Algorithm in the Unicode Specification through 14.0. It permits the visual reordering of characters via control sequences, which can be used to craft source code that renders different logic than the logical ordering of tokens ingested by compilers and interpreters. Adversaries can leverage this to encode source code for compilers accepting Unicode such that targeted vulnerabilities are introduced invisibly to human reviewers. NOTE: the Unicode Consortium offers the following alternative approach to presenting this concern. An issue is noted in the nature of international text that can affect applications that implement support for The Unicode Standard and the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm (all versions). Due to text display behavior when text includes left-to-right and right-to-left characters, the visual order of tokens may be different from their logical order. Additionally, control characters needed to fully support the requirements of bidirectional text can further obfuscate the logical order of tokens. Unless mitigated, an adversary could craft source code such that the ordering of tokens perceived by human reviewers does not match what will be processed by a compiler/interpreter/etc. The Unicode Consortium has documented this class of vulnerability in its document, Unicode Technical Report #36, Unicode Security Considerations. The Unicode Consortium also provides guidance on mitigations for this class of issues in Unicode Technical Standard #39, Unicode Security Mechanisms, and in Unicode Standard Annex #31, Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax. Also, the BIDI specification allows applications to tailor the implementation in ways that can mitigate misleading visual reordering in program text; see HL4 in Unicode Standard Annex #9, Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
An issue was discovered in the Bidirectional Algorithm in the Unicode Specification through 14.0. It permits the visual reordering of characters via control sequences, which can be used to craft source code that renders different logic than the logical ordering of tokens ingested by compilers and interpreters. Adversaries can leverage this to encode source code for compilers accepting Unicode such that targeted vulnerabilities are introduced invisibly to human reviewers. NOTE: the Unicode Consortium offers the following alternative approach to presenting this concern. An issue is noted in the nature of international text that can affect applications that implement support for The Unicode Standard and the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm (all versions). Due to text display behavior when text includes left-to-right and right-to-left characters, the visual order of tokens may be different from their logical order. Additionally, control characters needed to fully support the requirements of bidirectional text can further obfuscate the logical order of tokens. Unless mitigated, an adversary could craft source code such that the ordering of tokens perceived by human reviewers does not match what will be processed by a compiler/interpreter/etc. The Unicode Consortium has documented this class of vulnerability in its document, Unicode Technical Report #36, Unicode Security Considerations. The Unicode Consortium also provides guidance on mitigations for this class of issues in Unicode Technical Standard #39, Unicode Security Mechanisms, and in Unicode Standard Annex #31, Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax. Also, the BIDI specification allows applications to tailor the implementation in ways that can mitigate misleading visual reordering in program text; see HL4 in Unicode Standard Annex #9, Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm.
Why
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-94 ↗
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'). The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Mitigation available
- Affected
- n/a
- Action
- Apply the mitigation in the linked authoritative guidance while planning the vendor's permanent fix.
- Workaround
- A mitigation or workaround reference is available from the source linked below; validate it against the affected product and version.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 1 Nov 2021 · Last source change 4 Aug 2024, 03:38 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceNIST NVD
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2021-29541
Product sourceUnavailable
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceNIST NVD
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.