pypi package report

Is py-rattler safe?

2 known vulnerabilities, worst severity MODERATE.

// reach

1 direct dependencies

none carry a known advisory

    3 packages depend on it

    an advisory here reaches each of them

    Create a free accountfor every dependency path, dependent and what to upgrade
    // ai model usage

    No published models are known to use this package.


    cvss
    0.0
    medium

    severity out of 10

    epss
    0.00%
    low

    chance of exploitation in 30 days, 25th percentile of all CVEs

    xyz score
    not scored

    CyberXYZ composite out of 10

    fig. 01 — GHSA-h672-p7h7-97v9, the advisory selected below

    // 2 advisories

    GHSA-h672-p7h7-97v9

    MODERATECVE-2026-53956

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

    During cache materialization, the rattercache 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.

    // cvss v3.1 vector

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

    Attack vector
    Network
    Attack complexity
    Low
    Privileges required
    None
    User interaction
    Required
    Scope
    Unchanged
    Confidentiality
    None
    Integrity
    Low
    Availability
    Low

    Checked 2026-10-23 at 18:53 UTC. The most recent advisory here was published 2026-07-09. Updated continuously from NVD, GHSA, OSV and CNA feeds.

    Think a verdict here is wrong? Tell us — we respond within 2 business days.