CWE-22
Weakness Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Many file operations are intended to take place within a restricted directory. By using special elements such as ".." and "/" separators, attackers can escape outside of the restricted location to access files or directories that are elsewhere on the system. One of the most common special elements is the "../" sequence, which in most modern operating systems is interpreted as the parent directory of the current location. This is referred to as relative path traversal. Path traversal also covers the use of absolute pathnames such as "/usr/local/bin" to access unexpected files. This is referred to as absolute path traversal.
Mapping guidance
This CWE entry might have children that would be more appropriate.
Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit. Consider children such as CWE-23 (or its descendants) for relative path traversal, or CWE-36 for absolute path traversal.
Relationships and members
Modes of introduction
Detection methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated techniques can find areas where path traversal weaknesses exist. However, tuning or customization may be required to remove or de-prioritize path-traversal problems that are only exploitable by the product's administrator - or other privileged users - and thus potentially valid behavior or, at worst, a bug instead of a vulnerability.
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis
Manual white box techniques may be able to provide sufficient code coverage and reduction of false positives if all file access operations can be assessed within limited time constraints.
Effectiveness: High
Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Web Application Scanner
Web Services Scanner
Database Scanners
Effectiveness: High
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Fuzz Tester
Framework-based Fuzzer
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
Effectiveness: High
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Source code Weakness Analyzer
Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Effectiveness: High
Architecture or Design Review
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
Effectiveness: High
Notes
Other
In many programming languages, the injection of a null byte (the 0 or NUL) may allow an attacker to truncate a generated filename to apply to a wider range of files. For example, the product may add ".txt" to any pathname, thus limiting the attacker to text files, but a null injection may effectively remove this restriction.
Relationship
Pathname equivalence can be regarded as a type of canonicalization error.
Relationship
Some pathname equivalence issues are not directly related to directory traversal, rather are used to bypass security-relevant checks for whether a file/directory can be accessed by the attacker (e.g. a trailing "/" on a filename could bypass access rules that don't expect a trailing /, causing a server to provide the file when it normally would not).
Terminology
Like other weaknesses, terminology is often based on the types of manipulations used, instead of the underlying weaknesses. Some people use "directory traversal" only to refer to the injection of ".." and equivalent sequences whose specific meaning is to traverse directories.
Other variants like "absolute pathname" and "drive letter" have the *effect* of directory traversal, but some people may not call it such, since it doesn't involve ".." or equivalent.
Research Gap
Many variants of path traversal attacks are probably under-studied with respect to root cause. CWE-790 and CWE-182 begin to cover part of this gap.
Research Gap
Incomplete diagnosis or reporting of vulnerabilities can make it difficult to know which variant is affected. For example, a researcher might say that "..\" is vulnerable, but not test "../" which may also be vulnerable.
Any combination of directory separators ("/", "\", etc.) and numbers of "." (e.g. "....") can produce unique variants; for example, the "//../" variant is not listed (CVE-2004-0325). See this entry's children and lower-level descendants.
Content history
Identified weakness in Perl demonstrative example
Provided diagram to improve CWE usability
Identified weakness in "good code" for Python demonstrative example
Provided a demonstrative example in PHP
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
Suggested OWASP Top Ten 2004 mapping
updated Alternate_Terms, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Relevant_Properties, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Description
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Detection_Factors, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Name, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Taxonomy_Mappings, Terminology_Notes, Time_of_Introduction, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Observed_Examples
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Other_Notes, Research_Gaps
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Relationships
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Demonstrative_Examples
updated Affected_Resources, Causal_Nature, Likelihood_of_Exploit, References, Relationships, Relevant_Properties, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated References, Relationships
updated References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Type
updated Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
updated Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
updated Observed_Examples, References
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Detection_Factors
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
updated Observed_Examples
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, References
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Name, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
16030 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-P8H7-C8GW-6X8C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-06 21:30 – Updated: 2024-09-13 19:34A path traversal vulnerability exists in the parisneo/lollms application, affecting version 9.4.0 and potentially earlier versions, but fixed in version 9.5.0. The vulnerability arises due to improper validation of file paths between Windows and Linux environments, allowing attackers to traverse beyond the intended directory and read any file on the Windows system. Specifically, the application fails to adequately sanitize file paths containing backslashes (\), which can be exploited to access the root directory and read, or even delete, sensitive files. This issue was discovered in the context of the /user_infos endpoint, where a crafted request using backslashes to reference a file (e.g., \windows\win.ini) could result in unauthorized file access. The impact of this vulnerability includes the potential for attackers to access sensitive information such as environment variables, database files, and configuration files, which could lead to further compromise of the system.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "lollms"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.5.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-4881"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-36"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-09-13T19:34:56Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-06T19:16:03Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A path traversal vulnerability exists in the parisneo/lollms application, affecting version 9.4.0 and potentially earlier versions, but fixed in version 9.5.0. The vulnerability arises due to improper validation of file paths between Windows and Linux environments, allowing attackers to traverse beyond the intended directory and read any file on the Windows system. Specifically, the application fails to adequately sanitize file paths containing backslashes (`\\`), which can be exploited to access the root directory and read, or even delete, sensitive files. This issue was discovered in the context of the `/user_infos` endpoint, where a crafted request using backslashes to reference a file (e.g., `\\windows\\win.ini`) could result in unauthorized file access. The impact of this vulnerability includes the potential for attackers to access sensitive information such as environment variables, database files, and configuration files, which could lead to further compromise of the system.",
"id": "GHSA-p8h7-c8gw-6x8c",
"modified": "2024-09-13T19:34:56Z",
"published": "2024-06-06T21:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/parisneo/lollms/commit/95ad36eeffc6a6be3e3f35ed35a384d768f0ecf6"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/parisneo/lollms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.com/bounties/94f7f901-80b0-4cf5-b545-ac5c1e7635e9"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "LoLLMS Path Traversal vulnerability"
}
GHSA-P8J8-WXVP-H695
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-25 12:30 – Updated: 2023-01-06 23:07A vulnerability classified as critical was found in SimbCo httpster. This vulnerability affects the function fs.realpathSync of the file src/server.coffee. The manipulation leads to path traversal. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is d3055b3e30b40b65d30c5a06d6e053dffa7f35d0. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-216748.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "httpster"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.1.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-36629"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-01-06T23:07:38Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-25T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability classified as critical was found in SimbCo httpster. This vulnerability affects the function fs.realpathSync of the file src/server.coffee. The manipulation leads to path traversal. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The name of the patch is d3055b3e30b40b65d30c5a06d6e053dffa7f35d0. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-216748.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-p8j8-wxvp-h695",
"modified": "2023-01-06T23:07:38Z",
"published": "2022-12-25T12:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36629"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SimbCo/httpster/pull/36"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/SimbCo/httpster/commit/d3055b3e30b40b65d30c5a06d6e053dffa7f35d0"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/SimbCo/httpster"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.216748"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SimbCo httpster vulnerable to Path Traversal"
}
GHSA-P8J9-F8PH-95MF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-08-09 12:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:44An issue was discovered in Paessler PRTG Network Monitor 23.2.83.1760 x64. To exploit the vulnerability, a authenticated user can create a HL7 Sensor. When creating this sensor, the user can set the HL7 message that should be sent from the PRTG device. This input parameter contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows an attacker to choose arbitrary files from the system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-31448"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-08-09T12:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Paessler PRTG Network Monitor 23.2.83.1760 x64. To exploit the vulnerability, a authenticated user can create a HL7 Sensor. When creating this sensor, the user can set the HL7 message that should be sent from the PRTG device. This input parameter contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows an attacker to choose arbitrary files from the system.",
"id": "GHSA-p8j9-f8ph-95mf",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:44:12Z",
"published": "2023-08-09T12:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-31448"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://kb.paessler.com/en/topic/91845-multiple-vulnerabilites-fixed-in-paessler-prtg-network-monitor-23-3-86-1520"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.paessler.com/prtg/history/stable"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P8JC-2H55-7W89
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-29 21:31 – Updated: 2025-04-29 21:31A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Wangshen SecGate 3600 2400. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file ?g=log_export_file. The manipulation of the argument file_name leads to path traversal. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-4078"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-29T20:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Wangshen SecGate 3600 2400. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file ?g=log_export_file. The manipulation of the argument file_name leads to path traversal. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-p8jc-2h55-7w89",
"modified": "2025-04-29T21:31:55Z",
"published": "2025-04-29T21:31:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-4078"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://flowus.cn/share/f5c70c53-737b-470b-aa2e-6d5524f849fb?code=G8A6P3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.306515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.306515"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.560540"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-P8M3-FQ83-FGM7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-28 15:31 – Updated: 2026-10-13 15:31Dayforce Payroll is vulnerable to Path Traversal in file download functionality. An unauthenticated attacker can sent GET request with file path parameter set to any path including an absolute local file path.
Because vendor contact attempts were unsuccessful, the vulnerability has only been confirmed in version R2026.2.0 but may also affect other versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-73642"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-28T14:17:17Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Dayforce Payroll is vulnerable to Path Traversal\u00a0 in file download functionality. An unauthenticated attacker can sent GET request with file path parameter set to any path including an\u00a0absolute\nlocal file path.\n\n\nBecause vendor contact attempts were unsuccessful, the vulnerability has only been confirmed in version\u00a0R2026.2.0 but may also affect other versions.",
"id": "GHSA-p8m3-fq83-fgm7",
"modified": "2026-10-13T15:31:32Z",
"published": "2026-09-28T15:31:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-73642"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.pl/en/posts/2026/08/CVE-2026-73640"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.pl/en/posts/2026/09/CVE-2026-73640"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hcm.excelityglobal.com/ESS"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dayforce.com/how-we-help/dayforce/payroll-solutions"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-P8PG-Q426-99PH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:33 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:33Directory traversal vulnerability in Avigilon Control Center (ACC) 4 before 4.12.0.54 and 5 before 5.4.2.22 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a crafted help/ URL.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-2860"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-06-23T16:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Directory traversal vulnerability in Avigilon Control Center (ACC) 4 before 4.12.0.54 and 5 before 5.4.2.22 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a crafted help/ URL.",
"id": "GHSA-p8pg-q426-99ph",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:33:30Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:33:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-2860"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/555984"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/75115"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-P8RW-8QJ3-HF33
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-02 22:00 – Updated: 2026-09-02 22:00Summary
An authenticated, non-admin user can obtain arbitrary host-filesystem read/write (and host environment-secret disclosure) on an Omnigent runner by uploading an agent bundle whose os_env.cwd points outside any intended workspace (e.g. / or /home/<victim>). The cwd field is taken verbatim from the bundle with no validation, normalization, or boundary check anywhere in the spec pipeline.
This is a different sink from GHSA-jrrm-9hc7-2v3h (CWE-94, shared-agent bundle overwrite -> stdio MCP RCE). It shares the bundle-upload vector but is reached through the user's own session-scoped agent and is not addressed by that advisory's proposed shared-agent guard.
Preconditions
- Runner realizes a session-scoped uploaded bundle without
OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACEset. When that env var is set (CLI- and host-launched sessions set it), the speccwdis overridden and the attack is neutralized — so this is deployment-gated, not universal. - Attacker is any authenticated user (no admin scope;
_require_useronly checks identity). No shared-agent overwrite needed.
Details (verified against code)
- Parse — no validation.
omnigent/spec/parser.py:696storescwd=str(cwd_raw)verbatim. Absolute paths (/,/etc),../.., etc. are all accepted. Thesandbox.typeis likewise author-chosen and"none"is legal. - Validate — cwd unconstrained.
omnigent/spec/validator.py_validate_os_envchecks only fork/scratch/egress combinations; it never referencescwd(the sole mention, line ~526, is a comment). No boundary is applied to the cwd itself. The boundary inserver/schemas.pyvalidates a caller-supplied workspace against the spec cwd (treating the author cwd as trusted) and only for host-launched sessions — it does not bound the cwd. - Sink.
omnigent/inner/os_env.py:890setscwd = Path(spec.cwd or os.getcwd()).resolve(strict=False)as the environment root;os_env.py:934doesshutil.copytree(src=cwd, ...)whenfork=true. All agent file/shell tools are bounded by_assert_within_cwd(os_env.py:1040), which checksresolved.relative_to(cwd)— but since cwd is attacker-controlled,cwd=/makes the entire host filesystem in-bounds for read and write;fork=truewithcwd=/home/victimcopies that tree into the agent-readable workspace. - Decisive gate.
omnigent/runner/resource_registry.py:648-654:cwd = default_cwdonly whenself._runner_workspace is not None or spec_os_env.cwd in (None, ".", "./"); otherwisecwd = spec_os_env.cwd(the attacker's absolute path). SoOMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACEis the only thing standing between the spec and the host FS — and it is an operational control, not an in-code guard. A code comment attool_dispatch.py:~4207claims cwd "is treated as a boundary at session-create time," which is not true on this path.
Attack path
- Authenticated user sends
POST /v1/sessions(multipart) with an agent bundle whoseconfig.yamlcontains:yaml os_env: cwd: "/" # or /home/<victim>, with fork: true for one-shot exfil sandbox: { type: none } - On a runner without
OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACE, the agent'ssys_os_read/write/edit/shelltools now operate over the whole host filesystem, and (sandbox inactive) inherit the runner's full environment — exposing host secrets via e.g.sys_os_shell("env").
Impact
Arbitrary host-filesystem read/write and runner-environment secret disclosure, available to any authenticated user on an affected deployment. High severity (deployment-conditional).
Suggested fix
Add a control on the cwd field itself in omnigent/spec/_validate_os_env (and/or at parse): reject absolute paths and .. traversal, and require cwd to resolve within the runner workspace / an allow-listed root. Do not rely on OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACE being set as the sole defense. Consider also disallowing bundle-author sandbox.type: none for server-realized (non-CLI) sessions.
Related
GHSA-jrrm-9hc7-2v3h (same bundle-upload vector, different sink; that fix does not cover this).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "omnigent"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.3.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-62677"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-02T22:00:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-21T18:16:49Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nAn authenticated, non-admin user can obtain **arbitrary host-filesystem read/write** (and host environment-secret disclosure) on an Omnigent **runner** by uploading an agent bundle whose `os_env.cwd` points outside any intended workspace (e.g. `/` or `/home/\u003cvictim\u003e`). The `cwd` field is taken **verbatim** from the bundle with no validation, normalization, or boundary check anywhere in the spec pipeline.\n\nThis is a **different sink** from GHSA-jrrm-9hc7-2v3h (CWE-94, shared-agent bundle overwrite -\u003e stdio MCP RCE). It shares the bundle-upload *vector* but is reached through the user\u0027s **own** session-scoped agent and is **not** addressed by that advisory\u0027s proposed shared-agent guard.\n\n### Preconditions\n\n- Runner realizes a session-scoped uploaded bundle **without** `OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACE` set. When that env var is set (CLI- and host-launched sessions set it), the spec `cwd` is overridden and the attack is neutralized \u2014 so this is deployment-gated, not universal.\n- Attacker is any authenticated user (no admin scope; `_require_user` only checks identity). No shared-agent overwrite needed.\n\n### Details (verified against code)\n\n1. **Parse \u2014 no validation.** `omnigent/spec/parser.py:696` stores `cwd=str(cwd_raw)` verbatim. Absolute paths (`/`, `/etc`), `../..`, etc. are all accepted. The `sandbox.type` is likewise author-chosen and `\"none\"` is legal.\n2. **Validate \u2014 cwd unconstrained.** `omnigent/spec/validator.py` `_validate_os_env` checks only fork/scratch/egress combinations; it never references `cwd` (the sole mention, line ~526, is a comment). No boundary is applied to the cwd itself. The boundary in `server/schemas.py` validates a *caller-supplied workspace against* the spec cwd (treating the author cwd as trusted) and only for host-launched sessions \u2014 it does not bound the cwd.\n3. **Sink.** `omnigent/inner/os_env.py:890` sets `cwd = Path(spec.cwd or os.getcwd()).resolve(strict=False)` as the environment root; `os_env.py:934` does `shutil.copytree(src=cwd, ...)` when `fork=true`. All agent file/shell tools are bounded by `_assert_within_cwd` (`os_env.py:1040`), which checks `resolved.relative_to(cwd)` \u2014 but since **cwd is attacker-controlled**, `cwd=/` makes the entire host filesystem in-bounds for read and write; `fork=true` with `cwd=/home/victim` copies that tree into the agent-readable workspace.\n4. **Decisive gate.** `omnigent/runner/resource_registry.py:648-654`: `cwd = default_cwd` only when `self._runner_workspace is not None or spec_os_env.cwd in (None, \".\", \"./\")`; otherwise `cwd = spec_os_env.cwd` (the attacker\u0027s absolute path). So `OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACE` is the only thing standing between the spec and the host FS \u2014 and it is an operational control, not an in-code guard. A code comment at `tool_dispatch.py:~4207` claims cwd \"is treated as a boundary at session-create time,\" which is not true on this path.\n\n### Attack path\n\n1. Authenticated user sends `POST /v1/sessions` (multipart) with an agent bundle whose `config.yaml` contains:\n ```yaml\n os_env:\n cwd: \"/\" # or /home/\u003cvictim\u003e, with fork: true for one-shot exfil\n sandbox: { type: none }\n ```\n2. On a runner without `OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACE`, the agent\u0027s `sys_os_read`/`write`/`edit`/`shell` tools now operate over the whole host filesystem, and (sandbox inactive) inherit the runner\u0027s full environment \u2014 exposing host secrets via e.g. `sys_os_shell(\"env\")`.\n\n### Impact\n\nArbitrary host-filesystem read/write and runner-environment secret disclosure, available to any authenticated user on an affected deployment. High severity (deployment-conditional).\n\n### Suggested fix\n\nAdd a control on the `cwd` field itself in `omnigent/spec/_validate_os_env` (and/or at parse): reject absolute paths and `..` traversal, and require `cwd` to resolve within the runner workspace / an allow-listed root. Do not rely on `OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACE` being set as the sole defense. Consider also disallowing bundle-author `sandbox.type: none` for server-realized (non-CLI) sessions.\n\n### Related\n\nGHSA-jrrm-9hc7-2v3h (same bundle-upload vector, different sink; that fix does not cover this).",
"id": "GHSA-p8rw-8qj3-hf33",
"modified": "2026-09-02T22:00:54Z",
"published": "2026-09-02T22:00:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent/security/advisories/GHSA-p8rw-8qj3-hf33"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-62677"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent/pull/1417"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent/commit/7ca0cca3c9a65c04c489edf68f0e080424a26868"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/omnigent-ai/omnigent/releases/tag/v0.3.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Omnigent: Unvalidated os_env.cwd in agent bundle yields arbitrary host filesystem access on runners without OMNIGENT_RUNNER_WORKSPACE"
}
GHSA-P8W6-CVMC-RG5G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-09 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-09 15:30A improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory ('path traversal') in Fortinet FortiSandbox version 4.4.0 through 4.4.3 and 4.2.0 through 4.2.6 and 4.0.0 through 4.0.4 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted HTTP requests.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-23671"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-09T15:15:31Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory (\u0027path traversal\u0027) in Fortinet FortiSandbox version 4.4.0 through 4.4.3 and 4.2.0 through 4.2.6 and 4.0.0 through 4.0.4 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via crafted HTTP requests.",
"id": "GHSA-p8w6-cvmc-rg5g",
"modified": "2024-04-09T15:30:38Z",
"published": "2024-04-09T15:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-23671"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-23-454"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P8WC-W2R7-2875
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-20 21:31 – Updated: 2026-10-20 21:31A arbitrary file write vulnerability exists in the boa formUploadFile functionality of X2000R (version(s): TOTOLINK-X2000R-Gh-V1.0.0-B20250421.1327). A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary code execution. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-9827"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-20T21:17:23Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "A arbitrary file write vulnerability exists in the boa formUploadFile functionality of X2000R (version(s): TOTOLINK-X2000R-Gh-V1.0.0-B20250421.1327). A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to arbitrary code execution. An attacker can make an authenticated HTTP request to trigger this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-p8wc-w2r7-2875",
"modified": "2026-10-20T21:31:09Z",
"published": "2026-10-20T21:31:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-9827"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2026-2430"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-P8WQ-RX2X-QQHW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:54 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:46The insert-pages plugin before 3.2.4 for WordPress has directory traversal via custom template paths.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-18586"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-22T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The insert-pages plugin before 3.2.4 for WordPress has directory traversal via custom template paths.",
"id": "GHSA-p8wq-rx2x-qqhw",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:46:03Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:54:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-18586"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/insert-pages/#developers"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-5.1
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.
- Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-20.1
Strategy: Input Validation
- Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
- Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59). This includes:
- realpath() in C
- getCanonicalPath() in Java
- GetFullPath() in ASP.NET
- realpath() or abs_path() in Perl
- realpath() in PHP
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-17
Strategy: Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
Mitigation MIT-21.1
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
- When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
- For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-185] provide this capability.
Mitigation MIT-22
Strategy: Sandbox or Jail
- Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
- OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation MIT-34
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
- Store library, include, and utility files outside of the web document root, if possible. Otherwise, store them in a separate directory and use the web server's access control capabilities to prevent attackers from directly requesting them. One common practice is to define a fixed constant in each calling program, then check for the existence of the constant in the library/include file; if the constant does not exist, then the file was directly requested, and it can exit immediately.
- This significantly reduces the chance of an attacker being able to bypass any protection mechanisms that are in the base program but not in the include files. It will also reduce the attack surface.
Mitigation MIT-39
- Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended). The messages should not reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Attackers can use detailed information to refine or optimize their original attack, thereby increasing their chances of success.
- If errors must be captured in some detail, record them in log messages, but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Highly sensitive information such as passwords should never be saved to log files.
- Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a user account exists or not.
- In the context of path traversal, error messages which disclose path information can help attackers craft the appropriate attack strings to move through the file system hierarchy.
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-126: Path Traversal
An adversary uses path manipulation methods to exploit insufficient input validation of a target to obtain access to data that should be not be retrievable by ordinary well-formed requests. A typical variety of this attack involves specifying a path to a desired file together with dot-dot-slash characters, resulting in the file access API or function traversing out of the intended directory structure and into the root file system. By replacing or modifying the expected path information the access function or API retrieves the file desired by the attacker. These attacks either involve the attacker providing a complete path to a targeted file or using control characters (e.g. path separators (/ or \) and/or dots (.)) to reach desired directories or files.
CAPEC-64: Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack targets the encoding of the URL combined with the encoding of the slash characters. An attacker can take advantage of the multiple ways of encoding a URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL. A URL may contain special character that need special syntax handling in order to be interpreted. Special characters are represented using a percentage character followed by two digits representing the octet code of the original character (%HEX-CODE). For instance US-ASCII space character would be represented with %20. This is often referred as escaped ending or percent-encoding. Since the server decodes the URL from the requests, it may restrict the access to some URL paths by validating and filtering out the URL requests it received. An attacker will try to craft an URL with a sequence of special characters which once interpreted by the server will be equivalent to a forbidden URL. It can be difficult to protect against this attack since the URL can contain other format of encoding such as UTF-8 encoding, Unicode-encoding, etc.
CAPEC-76: Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible.
CAPEC-78: Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the use of the backslash in alternate encoding. An adversary can provide a backslash as a leading character and causes a parser to believe that the next character is special. This is called an escape. By using that trick, the adversary tries to exploit alternate ways to encode the same character which leads to filter problems and opens avenues to attack.
CAPEC-79: Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the Slash characters. An adversary would try to exploit common filtering problems related to the use of the slashes characters to gain access to resources on the target host. Directory-driven systems, such as file systems and databases, typically use the slash character to indicate traversal between directories or other container components. For murky historical reasons, PCs (and, as a result, Microsoft OSs) choose to use a backslash, whereas the UNIX world typically makes use of the forward slash. The schizophrenic result is that many MS-based systems are required to understand both forms of the slash. This gives the adversary many opportunities to discover and abuse a number of common filtering problems. The goal of this pattern is to discover server software that only applies filters to one version, but not the other.