Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:H/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-12058 is a medium-severity Deserialization of Untrusted Data (CWE-502) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 16th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as Deep Learning Frameworks; in the Privacy and Disclosure risk domain.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-36634
Vulnerability Data
The Keras.Model.load_model method, including when executed with the intended security mitigation safe_mode=True, is vulnerable to arbitrary local file loading and Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF). This vulnerability stems from the way the StringLookup layer is handled during model loading from a…
more
specially crafted .keras archive. The constructor for the StringLookup layer accepts a vocabulary argument that can specify a local file path or a remote file path. * Arbitrary Local File Read: An attacker can create a malicious .keras file that embeds a local path in the StringLookup layer's configuration. When the model is loaded, Keras will attempt to read the content of the specified local file and incorporate it into the model state (e.g., retrievable via get_vocabulary()), allowing an attacker to read arbitrary local files on the hosting system. * Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF): Keras utilizes tf.io.gfile for file operations. Since tf.io.gfile supports remote filesystem handlers (such as GCS and HDFS) and HTTP/HTTPS protocols, the same mechanism can be leveraged to fetch content from arbitrary network endpoints on the server's behalf, resulting in an SSRF condition. The security issue is that the feature allowing external path loading was not properly restricted by the safe_mode=True flag, which was intended to prevent such unintended data access.
- CWE(s)
AI Security AnalysisAI
- AI Category
- Deep Learning Frameworks
- Risk Domain
- Privacy and Disclosure
- OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
- None mapped
- Classification Reason
- Matched keywords: keras
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can uncover deserialization flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops deserialization of untrusted data by ensuring inputs are valid before processing.
Engineering principles such as safe deserialization and input sanitization structurally prevent the weakness from being introduced.
Integrity verification tools can detect malformed or tampered serialized data after the fact.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.PS-02 addresses only post-deployment updates/patching and cannot prevent introduction of unsafe deserialization code, yet it can remediate some instances when the flaw exists in outdated libraries or components.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing includes validation of deserialization routines and the use of untrusted data, reducing the likelihood that unsafe object reconstruction will be deployed.
Requiring vetted libraries, regular updates and SAST before release reduces the likelihood that deserialization logic will accept and act on attacker-controlled serialized objects.
Regular scanning of third-party libraries and timely patching reduce the likelihood that unsafe deserialization vulnerabilities remain active.
Mandatory malware scanning of data received over networks or storage media intercepts malicious serialized payloads before they are deserialized by the target application.