LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2026-44513: Diffusers: `trust_remote_code` bypass via `custom_pipeline` and local custom components

Diffusers is the a library for pretrained diffusion models. Prior to 0.38.0, a trust_remote_code bypass in DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained allows arbitrary remote code execution despite the user passing trust_remote_code=False (or omitting it, which is the default). The vulnerability has three variants, all sharing the same root cause — the trust_remote_code gate was implemented inside DiffusionPipeline.download() rather than at the actual dynamic-module load site, so any code path that bypassed or short-circuited download() also bypassed the security check. DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained('repoA', custom_pipeline='attacker/repoB', trust_remote_code=False) — the gate evaluated against repoA's file list rather than repoB's, so repoB's pipeline.py was loaded and executed. DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained('/local/snapshot', custom_pipeline='attacker/repoB', trust_remote_code=False) — the local-path branch never invoked download(), so the gate was never reached and remote code from repoB executed. DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained('/local/snapshot', trust_remote_code=False) where the snapshot contains custom component files (e.g. unet/my_unet_model.py) referenced from model_index.json — same root cause; the local path skipped download() and custom component code executed. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.38.0.

HighCVSS 8.8Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

Hugging Face Diffusers before 0.38.0 could run code from a model pipeline even when users set trust_remote_code=False. The issue matters for teams loading community or third-party diffusion models, because a malicious pipeline or local snapshot could execute code during model loading.

Executive priority

Prioritize remediation for ML systems that ingest external models or user-selected repositories. Internal-only, pinned, trusted model workflows have lower urgency but should still upgrade because the default safety flag was bypassable.

Technical view

The trust_remote_code check was enforced in DiffusionPipeline.download(), not at dynamic module loading. Paths using custom_pipeline or local snapshots could avoid that check and load remote or local custom Python components. The advisory states this is fixed in Diffusers 0.38.0.

Likely exposure

Exposure is likely where applications, notebooks, services, or ML workflows use diffusers versions below 0.38.0 and load untrusted custom pipelines, remote repositories, local snapshots, or model_index.json-referenced custom components.

Exploitation context

The bundle does not cite KEV listing or confirmed active exploitation. Exploitation requires a user or application to load a malicious or compromised pipeline or snapshot; CVSS marks user interaction as required.

Researcher notes

Key variants involve custom_pipeline pointing to a second repository, custom_pipeline from a local snapshot, and local snapshots with custom component files. The shared flaw is security enforcement before download rather than at the dynamic import boundary.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade Hugging Face Diffusers to version 0.38.0 or later.
  • Restrict model loading to trusted, allowlisted repositories and snapshots.
  • Avoid custom_pipeline from untrusted sources until upgraded and reviewed.
  • Review vendor guidance for downstream packages and distributions.
  • Run ML model loading in constrained, least-privilege environments.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory deployed diffusers package versions across applications and notebooks.
  • Search code and configs for DiffusionPipeline.from_pretrained usage.
  • Review use of custom_pipeline and local snapshot loading paths.
  • Inspect model_index.json references to custom component files.
  • Check model provenance for recently added third-party repositories or snapshots.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
6

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-358: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-94: Code execution behavior lookup

Code execution and unsafe deserialization weaknesses often justify reviewing execution behavior and process telemetry. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
description · low confidence lookup

Execution behavior lookup

The CVE wording references code or command execution, so execution technique review may help defensive triage. This is a Glexia inferred lookup path, not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, or CVE Program mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2026-44513 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
8.8 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

2CVSS vectors
5Timeline events
2ADP providers
5Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: noTechnical Impact: total

CVSS vector scores

2 official scores

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
8.8CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H2.85.9GitHub_M
8.8CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H2.85.9redhat-SADP

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

8.8High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2026-44513Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Made public.

  3. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  4. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Reported to Red Hat.

  5. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
other:ssvc
redhat-SADPDiffusers: Diffusers: Arbitrary remote code execution via `trust_remote_code` bypass
other:Red Hat severity ratingcvssV3_1
  • 2026-05-14T17:02:10.040Z: Reported to Red Hat.
  • 2026-05-14T16:26:03.907Z: Made public.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
huggingfacediffusers< 0.38.0Listed
Weakness

CWE details

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-358 · source CWE mapping

Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard

Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

CWE-94 · source CWE mapping

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.