CVE-2026-65975 — Pydantic AI AG-UI Adapter: A dangling client-submitted tool call can execute when a trailing message is dropped during `sanitize_messages`
Pydantic AI is a Python agent framework for building applications and workflows with Generative AI. In versions 1.88.0 up to but not including 1.107.1 and 2.0.0b1 up to but not including 2.5.0, the UI adapters (AG-UI via Agent.to_ag_ui()/AGUIAdapter, and Vercel AI via VercelAIAdapter) use sanitize_messages to strip unresolved ("dangling") client-submitted tool calls from untrusted message history before it reaches the agent, a defense-in-depth default that prevents the agent from executing tool calls the model never emitted. However, the strip anchored to a message index computed before sanitization ran, so when a trailing client message sanitized to empty and was dropped (for example a client system message under the default manage_system_prompt='server'), a preceding assistant response carrying an unresolved tool call became the new tail and was dispatched without inspection. As a result, a remote client could cause a registered, non-approval server tool to run with client-supplied arguments rather than arguments the model produced. The impact is bounded by what the affected tools do and is most significant for applications that gate tool execution in a model-request hook (before_model_request / after_model_request), since a forged call skips the model turn and bypasses that guardrail; approval-gated tools (requires_approval=True) are not auto-executed by this path. This issue has been fixed in versions 1.107.1 and 2.5.0.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- Technical severity (medium)+3
- Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Pydantic Pydantic Ai, Pydantic Pydantic-ai-slim).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (access control), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pydantic | Pydantic Ai | ≥ 1.88.0 and < 1.107.1≥ 2.0.0 and < 2.5.0 | Vulnerable | NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| Pydantic | Pydantic Ai | version >= 1.88.0, < 1.107.1version >= 2.0.0b1, < 2.5.0 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
| Pydantic | Pydantic-ai-slim | version >= 1.88.0, < 1.107.1version >= 2.0.0b1, < 2.5.0 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 3.9 | 2.5 | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Audit administrative actions and access to resources outside each user’s normal pattern.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · pydantic/pydantic-ai, pydantic/pydantic-ai-slim
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 6.5
- Source status changed · → Analyzed
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
1 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- High CVE-2026-107295 `pydantic-ai-slim` web UI `/api/chat` accepts browser-simple cross-origin requests that can trigger agent tool execution 7d
- Medium CVE-2026-107294 Pydantic AI: Unbounded memory use when downloading remote content via web_fetch or FileUrl 7d
- Medium CVE-2026-107290 Pydantic AI: Event loop blocked by quadratic title extraction in `web_fetch` 7d
- Medium CVE-2026-107292 Pydantic AI Web chat UI (`Agent.to_web()`, `clai web`): the local chat endpoint does not validate the `Host` header 7d
- Medium CVE-2026-107291 Pydantic AI OpenTelemetry instrumentation: exception events on tool and agent run spans include content when `include_content=False` 7d
- Medium CVE-2026-107293 Pydantic AI OpenTelemetry instrumentation: retry prompt content is not redacted when `include_content=False` 7d
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No FIRST EPSS score.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-65975 is "Pydantic AI AG-UI Adapter: A dangling client-submitted tool call can execute when a trailing message is dropped during `sanitize_messages`", rated Medium. It affects Pydantic Ai (Pydantic); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.