Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.51% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-45805High confidence
Trojan Lockfilein pdm
pdm-project · pdm
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-J44V-MMF2-XVM9 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.8HighCVSS 3.1
Patch only the product branches with a verified fix
Fix availability varies by productHigh technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs pdm-project pdm and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Remediation availability differs by product scope
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
- Debian Security Tracker: 1 affected package state with no published fix
Distribution package intelligence
4 package statesRelease-specific package status
Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Package result overrides the generic status
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 1 affected package state shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | pdm | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.20.0.post1+ds1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | pdm | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | pdm | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.20.0.post1+ds1-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | pdm | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 2.20.0.post1+ds1-1 | 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. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 1 structured product or package state remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by product01
What, why and how
pdm is a Python package and dependency manager supporting the latest PEP standards. It's possible to craft a malicious `pdm.lock` file that could allow e.g. an insider or a malicious open source project to appear to depend on a trusted PyPI project, but actually install another project. A project `foo` can be targeted by creating the project `foo-2` and uploading the file `foo-2-2.tar.gz` to pypi.org. PyPI will see this as project `foo-2` version `2`, while PDM will see this as project `foo` version `2-2`. The version must only be `parseable as a version` and the filename must be a prefix of the project name, but it's not verified to match the version being installed. Version `2-2` is also not a valid normalized version per PEP 440. Matching the project name exactly (not just prefix) would fix the issue. When installing dependencies with PDM, what's actually installed could differ from what's listed in `pyproject.toml` (including arbitrary code execution on install). It could also be used for downgrade attacks by only changing the version. This issue has been addressed in commit `6853e2642df` which is included in release version `2.9.4`. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
What
pdm is a Python package and dependency manager supporting the latest PEP standards. It's possible to craft a malicious `pdm.lock` file that could allow e.g. an insider or a malicious open source project to appear to depend on a trusted PyPI project, but actually install another project. A project `foo` can be targeted by creating the project `foo-2` and uploading the file `foo-2-2.tar.gz` to pypi.org. PyPI will see this as project `foo-2` version `2`, while PDM will see this as project `foo` version `2-2`. The version must only be `parseable as a version` and the filename must be a prefix of the project name, but it's not verified to match the version being installed. Version `2-2` is also not a valid normalized version per PEP 440. Matching the project name exactly (not just prefix) would fix the issue. When installing dependencies with PDM, what's actually installed could differ from what's listed in `pyproject.toml` (including arbitrary code execution on install). It could also be used for downgrade attacks by only changing the version. This issue has been addressed in commit `6853e2642df` which is included in release version `2.9.4`. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
What
pdm is a Python package and dependency manager supporting the latest PEP standards. It's possible to craft a malicious `pdm.lock` file that could allow e.g. an insider or a malicious open source project to appear to depend on a trusted PyPI project, but actually install another project. A project `foo` can be targeted by creating the project `foo-2` and uploading the file `foo-2-2.tar.gz` to pypi.org. PyPI will see this as project `foo-2` version `2`, while PDM will see this as project `foo` version `2-2`. The version must only be `parseable as a version` and the filename must be a prefix of the project name, but it's not verified to match the version being installed. Version `2-2` is also not a valid normalized version per PEP 440. Matching the project name exactly (not just prefix) would fix the issue. When installing dependencies with PDM, what's actually installed could differ from what's listed in `pyproject.toml` (including arbitrary code execution on install). It could also be used for downgrade attacks by only changing the version. This issue has been addressed in commit `6853e2642df` which is included in release version `2.9.4`. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
Why
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
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
- local access → Improper Input Validation → execute code or commands in the affected security context
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-20 ↗
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's 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
- After compromise, an attacker may use built-in shells, scripting engines, scheduled tasks and native network utilities for discovery, persistence or movement. This is a plausible LoTL path, not evidence that it has occurred for every attack.
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. - Fix availability varies by product
- Affected
- pdm: >= 2.0.0,< 2.9.4
- Action
- Use the product-specific evidence above. Patch only products with a verified fixed release, and keep every affected or under-investigation state without a matching fix in the remediation queue.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 20 Oct 2023 · Last source change 12 Sept 2024, 15:01 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
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-2023-2755
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
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.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
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.