PYSEC-2026-2970

Vulnerability from pysec - Published: 2026-07-13 15:46 - Updated: 2026-07-13 16:05
VLAI
Details

rattler_cache and py-rattler were vulnerable to package-cache path traversal when handling package metadata from conda channels.

During cache materialization, the ratter_cache code used the package record build string as part of a cache key that was joined into a filesystem path. A malicious or untrusted channel could publish repodata with path separators or traversal components in that field, causing package contents to be written outside the configured package cache directory.

The issue requires use of a malicious or otherwise untrusted conda channel. Curated channels that validate package metadata are not expected to allow malformed build strings of this form.

Users should upgrade to a patched version and avoid untrusted conda channels.

Severity
5.4 (Medium)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
Impacted products
Name purl
py-rattler pkg:pypi/py-rattler
Aliases
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "py-rattler",
        "purl": "pkg:pypi/py-rattler"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.24.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ],
      "versions": [
        "0.1.0",
        "0.1.1",
        "0.1.2",
        "0.10.0",
        "0.11.0",
        "0.12.0",
        "0.13.0",
        "0.13.1",
        "0.14.0",
        "0.15.0",
        "0.16.0",
        "0.17.0",
        "0.18.0",
        "0.19.0",
        "0.2.0",
        "0.2.1",
        "0.20.0",
        "0.21.0",
        "0.22.0",
        "0.23.0",
        "0.23.1",
        "0.23.2",
        "0.3.0",
        "0.4.0",
        "0.5.0",
        "0.6.0",
        "0.6.1",
        "0.6.2",
        "0.6.3",
        "0.7.0",
        "0.7.1",
        "0.7.2",
        "0.8.0",
        "0.8.2",
        "0.9.0",
        "0.9.1"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-53956",
    "GHSA-h672-p7h7-97v9"
  ],
  "details": "`rattler_cache` and `py-rattler` were vulnerable to package-cache path traversal when handling package metadata from conda channels.\n\nDuring cache materialization, the `ratter_cache` code used the package record `build` string as part of a cache key that was joined into a filesystem path. A malicious or untrusted channel could publish repodata with path separators or traversal components in that field, causing package contents to be written outside the configured package cache directory.\n\nThe issue requires use of a malicious or otherwise untrusted conda channel. Curated channels that validate package metadata are not expected to allow malformed build strings of this form.\n\nUsers should upgrade to a patched version and avoid untrusted conda channels.",
  "id": "PYSEC-2026-2970",
  "modified": "2026-07-13T16:05:50.063696Z",
  "published": "2026-07-13T15:46:30.375344Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/conda/rattler/security/advisories/GHSA-h672-p7h7-97v9"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/conda/rattler"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://pypi.org/project/py-rattler"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-h672-p7h7-97v9"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-53956"
    }
  ],
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Rattler vulnerable to package cache path traversal via conda package build string"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.