Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.29% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceUnknown · Unknown
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedA vulnerability in the Python-Future 1.0.0 module allows for arbitrary code execution via the unintended import of a file named test.py. When the module is loaded, it automatically imports test.py, if present in the same directory or in the sys.path. This behavior can be exploited by an attacker who has the ability to write files to the server, allowing the execution of arbitrary code. NOTE: Multiple third parties have disputed this issue and stated that it is not a security flaw in python-future and is a documented feature of Python’s import system in the handling of sys.path.
A vulnerability in the Python-Future 1.0.0 module allows for arbitrary code execution via the unintended import of a file named test.py. When the module is loaded, it automatically imports test.py, if present in the same directory or in the sys.path. This behavior can be exploited by an attacker who has the ability to write files to the server, allowing the execution of arbitrary code. NOTE: Multiple third parties have disputed this issue and stated that it is not a security flaw in python-future and is a documented feature of Python’s import system in the handling of sys.path.
Untrusted input reaches a command interpreter without sufficient validation or separation from command syntax.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
A vulnerability in the Python-Future 1.0.0 module allows for arbitrary code execution via the unintended import of a file named test.py. When the module is loaded, it automatically imports test.py, if present in the same directory or in the sys.path. This behavior can be exploited by an attacker who has the ability to write files to the server, allowing the execution of arbitrary code. NOTE: Multiple third parties have disputed this issue and stated that it is not a security flaw in python-future and is a documented feature of Python’s import system in the handling of sys.path.
Untrusted input reaches a command interpreter without sufficient validation or separation from command syntax.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
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.
CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection'). The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 14 Aug 2025 · Last source change 26 Sept 2025, 19:50 UTC · CWE-77 · Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Missing structured fields: affected product. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.