BlackTreeCVE Intelligencepyinstaller · pyinstaller
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedPyInstaller bundles a Python application and all its dependencies into a single package. Due to a special entry being appended to `sys.path` during the bootstrap process of a PyInstaller-frozen application, and due to the bootstrap script attempting to load an optional module for bytecode decryption while this entry is still present in `sys.path`, an application built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0 may be tricked by an unprivileged attacker into executing arbitrary python code when **all** of the following conditions are met. First, the application is built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0; both onedir and onefile mode are affected. Second, the optional bytecode encryption code feature was not enabled during the application build. Third, the attacker can create files/directories in the same directory where the executable is located. Fourth, the filesystem supports creation of files/directories that contain `?` in their name (i.e., non-Windows systems). Fifth, the attacker is able to determine the offset at which the PYZ archive is embedded in the executable. The attacker can create a directory (or a zip archive) next to the executable, with the name that matches the format used by PyInstaller's bootloader to transmit information about the location of PYZ archive to the bootstrap script. If this directory (or zip archive) contains a python module whose name matches the name used by the optional bytecode encryption feature, this module will be loaded and executed by the bootstrap script (in the absence of the real, built-in module that is available when the bytecode-encryption feature is enabled). This results in arbitrary code execution that requires no modification of the executable itself. If the executable is running with elevated privileges (for example, due to having the `setuid` bit set), the code in the injected module is also executed with the said elevated privileges, resulting in a local privilege escalation. PyInstaller 6.0.0 (f5adf291c8b832d5aff7632844f7e3ddf7ad4923) removed support for bytecode encryption; this effectively removes the described attack vector, due to the bootstrap script not attempting to load the optional module for bytecode-decryption anymore. PyInstaller 6.10.0 (cfd60b510f95f92cb81fc42735c399bb781a4739) reworked the bootstrap process to avoid (ab)using `sys.path` for transmitting location of the PYZ archive, which further eliminates the possibility of described injection procedure. If upgrading PyInstaller is not feasible, this issue can be worked around by ensuring proper permissions on directories containing security-sensitive executables (i.e., executables with `setuid` bit set) should mitigate the issue.
PyInstaller bundles a Python application and all its dependencies into a single package. Due to a special entry being appended to `sys.path` during the bootstrap process of a PyInstaller-frozen application, and due to the bootstrap script attempting to load an optional module for bytecode decryption while this entry is still present in `sys.path`, an application built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0 may be tricked by an unprivileged attacker into executing arbitrary python code when **all** of the following conditions are met. First, the application is built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0; both onedir and onefile mode are affected. Second, the optional bytecode encryption code feature was not enabled during the application build. Third, the attacker can create files/directories in the same directory where the executable is located. Fourth, the filesystem supports creation of files/directories that contain `?` in their name (i.e., non-Windows systems). Fifth, the attacker is able to determine the offset at which the PYZ archive is embedded in the executable. The attacker can create a directory (or a zip archive) next to the executable, with the name that matches the format used by PyInstaller's bootloader to transmit information about the location of PYZ archive to the bootstrap script. If this directory (or zip archive) contains a python module whose name matches the name used by the optional bytecode encryption feature, this module will be loaded and executed by the bootstrap script (in the absence of the real, built-in module that is available when the bytecode-encryption feature is enabled). This results in arbitrary code execution that requires no modification of the executable itself. If the executable is running with elevated privileges (for example, due to having the `setuid` bit set), the code in the injected module is also executed with the said elevated privileges, resulting in a local privilege escalation. PyInstaller 6.0.0 (f5adf291c8b832d5aff7632844f7e3ddf7ad4923) removed support for bytecode encryption; this effectively removes the described attack vector, due to the bootstrap script not attempting to load the optional module for bytecode-decryption anymore. PyInstaller 6.10.0 (cfd60b510f95f92cb81fc42735c399bb781a4739) reworked the bootstrap process to avoid (ab)using `sys.path` for transmitting location of the PYZ archive, which further eliminates the possibility of described injection procedure. If upgrading PyInstaller is not feasible, this issue can be worked around by ensuring proper permissions on directories containing security-sensitive executables (i.e., executables with `setuid` bit set) should mitigate the issue.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may execute code or commands in the affected security context.
PyInstaller bundles a Python application and all its dependencies into a single package. Due to a special entry being appended to `sys.path` during the bootstrap process of a PyInstaller-frozen application, and due to the bootstrap script attempting to load an optional module for bytecode decryption while this entry is still present in `sys.path`, an application built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0 may be tricked by an unprivileged attacker into executing arbitrary python code when **all** of the following conditions are met. First, the application is built with PyInstaller < 6.0.0; both onedir and onefile mode are affected. Second, the optional bytecode encryption code feature was not enabled during the application build. Third, the attacker can create files/directories in the same directory where the executable is located. Fourth, the filesystem supports creation of files/directories that contain `?` in their name (i.e., non-Windows systems). Fifth, the attacker is able to determine the offset at which the PYZ archive is embedded in the executable. The attacker can create a directory (or a zip archive) next to the executable, with the name that matches the format used by PyInstaller's bootloader to transmit information about the location of PYZ archive to the bootstrap script. If this directory (or zip archive) contains a python module whose name matches the name used by the optional bytecode encryption feature, this module will be loaded and executed by the bootstrap script (in the absence of the real, built-in module that is available when the bytecode-encryption feature is enabled). This results in arbitrary code execution that requires no modification of the executable itself. If the executable is running with elevated privileges (for example, due to having the `setuid` bit set), the code in the injected module is also executed with the said elevated privileges, resulting in a local privilege escalation. PyInstaller 6.0.0 (f5adf291c8b832d5aff7632844f7e3ddf7ad4923) removed support for bytecode encryption; this effectively removes the described attack vector, due to the bootstrap script not attempting to load the optional module for bytecode-decryption anymore. PyInstaller 6.10.0 (cfd60b510f95f92cb81fc42735c399bb781a4739) reworked the bootstrap process to avoid (ab)using `sys.path` for transmitting location of the PYZ archive, which further eliminates the possibility of described injection procedure. If upgrading PyInstaller is not feasible, this issue can be worked around by ensuring proper permissions on directories containing security-sensitive executables (i.e., executables with `setuid` bit set) should mitigate the issue.
Untrusted data can cross into a code-evaluation path and be interpreted as executable instructions.
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
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:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 9 Sept 2025 · Last source change 10 Sept 2025, 17:24 UTC · CWE-94 · Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.