BlueRock in Action: Neutralizing Deserialization Attacks Against AI/ML Workloads

The rapid adoption of AI/ML in enterprise means more critical workloads are built on Python frameworks for on-prem models. In fact, a recent survey found 78% of DevOps teams use or plan to use AI in development, often pulling in vast open‑source libraries. Python’s popularity is exploding (PyPI requests were projected to hit 530 billion in 2024, +87% YoY). This growth dramatically expands the attack surface: AI/ML systems now integrate hundreds of third‑party packages, making timely patching impossible. Security analysts warn that exploits now emerge in hours while fixes take weeks. In this environment, securing AI/ML workloads is mission-critical – especially when fundamental Python features like object serialization (e.g. pickle) are being weaponized.

• Why AI/ML security is urgent: AI applications often handle sensitive data (customer info, proprietary code, etc.) and expose new APIs or IPC channels.  Breaches in ML pipelines can leak data, corrupt models, or enable deeper network intrusion. As enterprises race to deploy generative AI, threat actors are increasingly targeting the AI/ML supply chain.  For example, ProtectAI reported a 220% jump in disclosed AI/ML vulnerabilities between late 2023 and early 2024. These include critical zero-days in popular ML frameworks like TensorFlow, PyTorch and model-serving tools – all of which often rely on Python object serialization.  Left unaddressed, such vulnerabilities can let attackers pivot from an ML application into the broader cloud or data center.
  
  
• Rapid exploitation and dependency risk: The “scan-and-patch” model is failing for AI/ML.  Attackers find and weaponize flaws faster than teams can update code. Vulnerabilities in open-source AI components typically persist for months: one study showed a major Linux LPE took 1.5+ years from introduction to widespread patching. In Python AI workflows, exploitation can occur instantly – imagine a poisoned model file or malicious serialized payload sent to a training job. Once deserialized, it can execute arbitrary code. This means insecure deserialization is now a systemic risk in ML: when tens of thousands of libraries are in play, any one might harbor a hidden path to remote code execution.

The Growing Threat of Python Deserialization Vulnerabilities

Insecure deserialization lets attackers inject malicious objects into Python processes. By design, Python’s pickle (and similar methods) will reconstruct and execute objects contained in byte streams. This “feature” becomes a critical flaw if an application loads data from untrusted sources.  In AI/ML, this happens routinely – e.g. model files, IPC channels, or network APIs that pass Python objects. Recent vulnerabilities make this painfully clear:

• TensorRT-LLM (NVIDIA) – CVE-2025-23254. The TensorRT-LLM framework’s Python executor used Pickle over an unsecured IPC channel. An attacker with local access could send a crafted pickle payload and gain code execution, info disclosure or data tampering. This flaw (CVSS 8.8) was officially a CWE-502 deserialization issue, prompting NVIDIA to add HMAC encryption by default to the IPC channel.
  
  
• vLLM (vLLM Mooncake) – CVE-2025-32444 / CVE-2025-29783. The high-performance inference engine vLLM had a critical bug in its “Mooncake” integration. Versions 0.6.5–0.8.4 allowed an attacker to send malicious pickle payloads over ZeroMQ and achieve arbitrary code execution. The fix was to upgrade to vLLM 0.8.5 and disable the insecure path, but it underscores how innocuous-seeming interfaces can be RCE vectors.
  
  
• Keras (.keras model loading) – CVE-2025-1550. Keras’s model loader (load_model) was found to allow code execution even with “safe_mode=True”.  By tampering with a model’s archive (the config.json inside a .keras file), attackers could run arbitrary code during loading. This means any service that fetches Keras models from users or external stores could be compromised. The remedy is to upgrade to Keras 3.9+ and avoid untrusted models, but legacy apps remain at risk.
  
  
• BentoML – CVE-2025-27520. BentoML’s serving library had an insecure deserialization in its serde.py. An unauthenticated attacker could send a specially crafted HTTP request (e.g. to any model endpoint) and the deserialize_value() function would unpickle it without validation, leading to remote code execution on the server.  BentoML patched this in version 1.4.3, but organizations using affected versions (1.3.8–1.4.2) must upgrade urgently.
  
  
• PyTorch (torch.load) – CVE-2025-32434. A critical RCE was found in PyTorch’s torch.load() function, even with the weights_only=True flag. This was previously considered safe, but it still led to RCE by deserializing pickled model data. Attackers can thus compromise any service that loads unvetted models. The fix is PyTorch 2.6.0+, but again highlights that even “safe” patterns can fail.
  
  
• Meta Llama Stack (Python Inference API) – CVE-2024-50050. Meta’s Llama stack had a flaw in its reference Python inference API. It automatically deserialized objects from a ZeroMQ socket using pickle, so a remote attacker could send malicious objects and achieve RCE.  Meta fixed this by switching to JSON-based messaging in Llama 0.0.41 (Oct 2024). This incident underscores that any exposed ML API is a potential deserialization risk.

Each of these examples exploits the fundamental fact that “untrusted data” is being deserialized without validation. In all cases, attackers could execute commands on the host system, potentially exfiltrate sensitive models, user data, or pivot deeper into the environment. The impact is high: an RCE in an ML server can completely compromise an organization’s AI service, erode customer trust, and lead to data breaches or compliance violations. Ignoring these vulnerabilities invites disaster: attackers could hijack models, introduce backdoors, or even weaponize AI pipelines for further supply-chain attacks.

Business Risks of Insecure Deserialization

Failing to address deserialization flaws in AI/ML workloads carries severe consequences:

• System Takeover: Any deserialization RCE can give attackers full control of the ML host. This means leaked data, stolen models, or unauthorized changes to AI output.  For example, a successful exploit of the PyTorch torch.load flaw could allow arbitrary shell commands, just as with a generic code injection. The aftermath could be catastrophic: customer data exfiltration, IP theft, or sabotage of business-critical ML services.
  
  
• Lateral Movement: Once inside an AI/ML container or VM, adversaries often probe for credentials or network trust. An attacker running code on an ML node can attempt to “hop” into databases, Kubernetes masters, or CI/CD systems. Insecure deserialization effectively turns an AI model server into a beachhead for wider network intrusion.
  
  
• Data Integrity and Safety: Malicious payloads can corrupt model data or training sets. This might result in skewed predictions, erroneous decisions, or even physically harmful outcomes in cyber-physical systems. For instance, tampering with an autonomous system’s model weights could induce failures or unsafe behavior.
  
  
• Regulatory & Compliance Issues: AI/ML often processes regulated data (health records, financial info, personal data). Unauthorized code execution could break GDPR, HIPAA or industry rules, leading to fines and brand damage. A data breach via a deserialization flaw could cost millions in penalties and litigation.
  
  
• Downtime and Cost: Detecting and recovering from an RCE incident is expensive. Systems may need to be quarantined or rebuilt; models retrained from scratch. As our research notes, the window between vulnerability discovery and weaponization can be just hours, so a successful exploit often outpaces any reactive response.

In short, any Python-based AI/ML service that unserializes untrusted input is at high risk of complete compromise. As one industry analysis warns, deserialization defects are a “hidden vulnerability that could cripple your systems”.

Existing Mitigations and Their Limitations

Organizations employ several strategies to combat deserialization attacks, but each has trade-offs:

• Library Patching & Upgrades: The obvious solution is to apply vendor patches promptly. Indeed, NVIDIA’s TensorRT-LLM was fixed by defaulting to HMAC-authenticated IPC, and Meta patched Llama to use JSON. However, patching is reactive and often slow. There can be weeks or months before fixes reach production, and many teams postpone updates due to operational risk. The typical patch window in enterprise can be months-long, leaving a long exposure period. Moreover, if multiple libraries are affected, rapidly coordinating all updates may be complex and risky.
  
  
• Secure Serialization Practices: Developers can avoid unsafe serializers altogether. For example, switching from pickle to JSON/YAML with strict schema validation is safer. Meta’s fix for Llama did exactly this by moving to JSON. In practice, however, this can require significant code changes, and not all frameworks support safer formats transparently. Hard-coding every data exchange to JSON is often impractical when third-party components expect native pickle formats.
  
  
• Cryptographic Signing & Encryption: Techniques like NVIDIA’s HMAC (encrypting the IPC channel) can ensure only legitimate endpoints communicate. Likewise, organizations could sign model files or requests so that only trusted ones are accepted. These measures raise the bar, but they rely on correct deployment. For instance, the TensorRT-LLM HMAC feature could be disabled via a parameter by mistake (setting use_hmac_encryption=False). Also, encryption doesn’t by itself validate the contents – it only protects the channel, so a key compromise or misconfiguration can reopen risk.
  
  
• Static Analysis & Code Review: Tools like linters or SAST can flag obvious patterns (e.g. using pickle.loads on user input). This is easy to implement in CI pipelines, but it only catches known code paths and often yields false positives. It can’t predict new attack techniques or account for complex deserialization flows across modules. As a result, many vulnerabilities slip through automated scans.
  
  
• Runtime Security Controls (EDR/WAF): Endpoint or network defenses can sometimes detect post-exploitation behavior (e.g. unusual processes). But these are generic and may miss a stealthy deserialization exploit, especially if it doesn’t manifest as high-risk I/O. And on a container, an EDR agent may not even see inside the process without intrusive instrumentation. Traditional monitoring is not tailored to the specifics of ML workloads.
  
  
• Isolation and Sandboxing: Running AI workloads in containers or VMs can limit damage, but only to an extent. A breakout from a container (via a vulnerability or misconfiguration) can happen, and code running inside still has access to any data volume mounted or model in memory. Sandboxes are not foolproof, and they don’t prevent an attacker from carrying out network-based attacks (e.g. moving laterally to other cloud services).

Each of the above approaches can help, but none is a silver bullet. Patches and safe coding are essential but lag reality; encryption and signing raise cost and complexity; traditional security tools don’t deeply inspect Python internals. Crucially, all these methods require effort from developers or operations teams. In contrast, runtime behavioral monitoring is the only approach that can dynamically detect and block an exploit as it happens, regardless of the specific vulnerability. This is where BlueRock’s technology comes in.

Shift-Down AI Security: BlueRock Runtime Guardrails for Python Deserialization

BlueRock’s new Python Deserialization Protection provides real-time defense against these attack vectors. It works by inserting a runtime “guardrail” into the Python execution environment. Whenever a Python process performs deserialization (e.g. via pickle.loads, torch.load, or similar routines), BlueRock transparently monitors the actions taken immediately upon deserializing the object. If upon deserializing the object – which originated from untrusted input – the Python runtime attempts any suspicious action (such as invoking privileged Python function calls), BlueRock instantly blocks the action and kills the offending operation.

• Behavioral rather than static analysis: Unlike source-code scanners or static profilers, BlueRock does not try to parse or whitelist serialized classes. Instead, it observes how the deserialized object causes the Python runtime to subsequently behave. For example, if a deserialized object instructs the Python runtime to call a dangerous function (os.system, arbitrary memory write, etc.), BlueRock’s policy stops it. This means BlueRock can catch zero-days and obfuscated exploits that static tools would miss. Because it enforces the security policy dynamically, no code changes or annotations are required from developers.
  
  
• Minimal performance impact on apps: BlueRock’s protection runs as dynamically injected code within the Python application, using runtime primitives for introspection. This architecture ensures that there is virtually no performance penalty or increased latency on your AI services. Deploying BlueRock is invisible to DevOps – it simply asserts “guardrails” on the runtime without rewriting any code or binaries.
  
  
• Precise and low-noise alerts: Legitimate Python objects will not trigger blocked actions unless truly malicious. In practice, any BlueRock alert from this module is a high-fidelity signal that a real exploit was attempted.  For example, if an attacker tries to exploit CVE-2025-27520 (BentoML RCE) by sending a poisoned payload, BlueRock sees the attack payload being unpickled and the Python runtime subsequently attempting to execute code – and immediately intervenes.
  
  
• Covers all Python applications: This guardrail applies to any Python-based workload – AI/ML services, orchestration scripts, data pipelines, or microservices. Whether it’s a Jupyter notebook executing pickle.load, a Flask REST API in FastAPI, or a PyTorch model server, BlueRock’s protection is in effect.

BlueRock’s Python Deserialization Protection adds a proactive layer that directly mitigates the class of vulnerabilities shown above. It addresses the behavioral root cause – untrusted objects causing the Python runtime to perform unauthorized operations – so it neutralizes exploits without needing to know the specific CVE in advance.

Plus, BlueRock’s approach is implemented as part of the operational stack. It requires minimal deployment steps (no developer coding) and delivers immediate protection against all Python deserialization exploits, known or unknown. In effect, BlueRock flips the model: instead of scrambling to patch and pray, teams get a real-time guardrail in the runtime environment itself.

Case Study: How BlueRock Neutralizes vLLM CVE-2025-32444 RCE

In a typical vLLM configuration, incoming user requests are processed by a centralized controller, which then assigns the request to one GPU worker in a corresponding cluster:

Each GPU worker has a full replica of the underlying LLM in order to independently process inbound user requests. Furthermore, each worker is able to directly reach every other worker on the same subnet via the unauthenticated ZeroMQ protocol so that each worker can share and access a common key-value cache. By using a shared KV-cache in a vLLM cluster, overall processing throughput improves by 1.4x to 2x for long-running conversations.

If an attacker is able to reach the GPU worker subnet, then they can wait for an existing worker to go offline (for maintenance), pretend to be that offline worker, and then subsequently inject a message directly into the KV-cache by sending a malicious Python pickle object to any one of the remaining workers. That worker will proceed to run any arbitrary code in the context of the vLLM daemon running inside this node.

With BlueRock deployed on each of the GPU worker nodes, all pickle objects are validated prior to full instantiation, thereby neutralizing this entire attack path – regardless of how the pickle object is delivered.

BlueRock EVC: How BlueRock Neutralizes All of These CVEs

‍

For more information about how BlueRock neutralizes the other Python deserialization vulnerabilities previously mentioned, check out our excerpt from our Evidence of Vulnerability Coverage portal as shown below:

‍

‍

Proactive Defenses for AI that Scale

Deserialization vulnerabilities aren’t going away – if anything, they’ll keep growing as AI/ML frameworks evolve. Just as CVE-2025-32434 and other Python flaws weren’t the first, they won’t be the last. Defenders need to adopt proactive, class-based defenses in addition to patching. BlueRock’s real-time introspection provides that unique defense-in-depth. By operating outside the application, monitoring for behavior, and stopping malicious actions on the spot, BlueRock ensures that untrusted data cannot execute harmful code – regardless of how it was packed.

Securing AI/ML workloads means defending their unique attack surface. Insecure deserialization is a top risk in that space, with proven exploits across Keras, PyTorch, BentoML, and others. BlueRock’s Python Deserialization Protection is a purpose-built runtime guardrail that addresses this risk at scale. It intercepts every deserialization event, checks the resulting object’s actions, and blocks any unauthorized function calls. This behavioral approach complements other security measures: it works with minimal overhead, needs no source modifications, and stops the kinds of RCE and data-tampering attacks that plague modern AI/ML. By shifting protection into the compute runtime, BlueRock helps security teams stay ahead of rapidly evolving threats in AI/ML environments.

‍