Skip to content

Hydra: hydra.utils.instantiate with untrusted config can lead to code execution

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jul 24, 2026 in hydra-ecosystem/hydra • Updated Aug 21, 2026

Package

pip hydra-core (pip)

Affected versions

<= 1.3.3

Patched versions

1.3.4

Description

Summary

hydra.utils.instantiate() resolves and calls Python objects from config. If an
application passes untrusted config to instantiate(), an attacker who controls
_target_ and its arguments can cause arbitrary code execution in the consuming
process.

Hydra is not a network service. Exploitation requires a consuming application,
library, or user workflow to load attacker-controlled config, CLI overrides, or
model metadata and pass it to hydra.utils.instantiate().

Details

Hydra's instantiate API is designed to construct objects and call functions from
configuration. For example:

component:
  _target_: package.module.Class
  arg: value

When this config is passed to hydra.utils.instantiate(), Hydra resolves
_target_ and calls it with the provided arguments.

This is intended for trusted application configuration. However, if untrusted
input controls _target_, the config becomes a callable-selection mechanism. A
malicious config can select a callable capable of executing code or commands and
provide attacker-controlled arguments.

This issue is the same general class of problem discussed by Unit 42 for
downstream AI/ML libraries such as NVIDIA NeMo, where untrusted model metadata
was passed into Hydra instantiate:

https://unit42.paloaltonetworks.com/rce-vulnerabilities-in-ai-python-libraries/

Hydra 1.3.4 includes a blacklist for some dangerous _target_ values. That
blacklist is defense-in-depth and is not a complete security boundary. The
blacklist is not present in the released hydra-core 1.3.3 package, so this
issue should not be described as a bypass of a released 1.3.3 blacklist.

Impact

A successful attack can execute code in the process that calls
hydra.utils.instantiate(). The impact is limited to the privileges and
environment of that process.

Potential impact includes:

  • Reading files, credentials, environment variables, or data accessible to the
    process
  • Modifying files, outputs, checkpoints, or application state writable by the
    process
  • Terminating or disrupting the process

Affected Usage

Applications and libraries are affected when they pass untrusted or semi-trusted
config, model metadata, CLI overrides, or other externally controlled data to
hydra.utils.instantiate() without constraining which targets may be
instantiated.

Trusted application-owned configuration is not affected in the same way.

Remediation

Hydra 1.3.4 hardens the existing behavior by adding a blacklist of obvious
dangerous targets. It is a substantial security improvement, and users remaining
on the 1.3 release line should upgrade to 1.3.4 or a newer version.

The unreleased Hydra 1.4 development line uses an allowlist-based instantiation
model that fully addresses this vulnerability class. The allowlist must come
from trusted application code or another trusted channel, not from the untrusted
config being instantiated.

Applications that consume untrusted or semi-trusted config should not pass it
directly to hydra.utils.instantiate(). They should validate _target_ values
against a trusted allowlist before instantiation.

References

@omry omry published to hydra-ecosystem/hydra Jul 24, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 21, 2026
Reviewed Aug 21, 2026
Last updated Aug 21, 2026

Severity

High

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 v3 base metrics

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

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

EPSS score

Weaknesses

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

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. Learn more on MITRE.

Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection')

The product uses external input with reflection to select which classes or code to use, but it does not sufficiently prevent the input from selecting improper classes or code. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-68508

GHSA ID

GHSA-2cp2-2r3c-7p7r

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.