Skip to content

Plugin System Bypass via Incomplete Static Analysis leads to Arbitrary Code Execution

Moderate
ParzivalHack published GHSA-vp22-38m5-r39r Apr 14, 2026

Package

pip pyspector (pip)

Affected versions

<=0.1.7

Patched versions

0.1.8

Description

Summary

The plugin security validator in PySpector uses AST-based static analysis to prevent dangerous code from being loaded as plugins. The blocklist implemented in PluginSecurity.validate_plugin_code is incomplete and can be bypassed using several Python constructs that are not checked. An attacker who can supply a plugin file can achieve arbitrary code execution within the PySpector process when that plugin is installed and executed.

Details

The validator maintains a set called fatal_calls that enumerates explicitly forbidden function names and attribute access patterns such as eval, exec, os.system, and subprocess.Popen. However, this approach relies on an exhaustive blocklist of known-dangerous identifiers, which is inherently incomplete.

The following bypass techniques are not detected by the current implementation:

importlib.import_module is not in fatal_calls and is not treated as a dangerous module, so it can be used to load os, subprocess, or any other module at runtime without triggering the validator.

Dynamic attribute chains using __class__.__mro__ and related dunder attributes allow traversal of the class hierarchy to reach arbitrary built-in functions without naming them directly in the source.

ctypes is not blocked and can be used to call native library functions including system.

__builtins__ dictionary access exposes all built-in callables without using the names that the validator checks.

types.CodeType allows construction and execution of raw code objects.

The alias resolution in the AST visitor only handles simple import X as Y cases, so aliased imports of blocked modules evade detection, and transitive imports through unblocked modules are never examined.

Because the validator produces a pass/fail result that gates plugin installation with the --trust flag, a bypass causes untrusted plugin code to execute with the full privileges of the PySpector process.

PoC

import textwrap, tempfile, os

evil_plugin = textwrap.dedent("""
import importlib
mod = importlib.import_module('os')
mod.system('id > /tmp/pwned')
""")

with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(suffix=".py", mode="w", delete=False) as f:
    f.write(evil_plugin)
    plugin_path = f.name

from pyspector.plugin_system import PluginSecurity

result = PluginSecurity.validate_plugin_code(plugin_path)
print("Validation passed:", result)

exec(compile(open(plugin_path).read(), plugin_path, "exec"))

print("Command output:", open("/tmp/pwned").read())
os.unlink(plugin_path)

Impact

Any user or process that can supply a plugin file to PySpector and invoke the plugin installation workflow can execute arbitrary operating system commands with the privileges of the PySpector process. The static analysis check provides a false sense of security, as it can be circumvented trivially using standard library modules that are present in every Python installation. All versions of PySpector that include the plugin system are affected.

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Local
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required Low
User interaction Active
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

CVE ID

CVE-2026-41206

Weaknesses

Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits