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
16187 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7WJP-5Q22-QFC3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-30 21:32 – Updated: 2026-09-30 21:32ZeroClaw versions before 0.8.5 built with plugins-wasm feature contain a path traversal vulnerability in plugin installation that fails to validate the wasm_path manifest field. Attackers can convince users to install crafted plugins that write arbitrary files to paths outside the plugins directory, such as shell startup files, enabling code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-101885"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-30T20:17:21Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "ZeroClaw versions before 0.8.5 built with plugins-wasm feature contain a path traversal vulnerability in plugin installation that fails to validate the wasm_path manifest field. Attackers can convince users to install crafted plugins that write arbitrary files to paths outside the plugins directory, such as shell startup files, enabling code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-7wjp-5q22-qfc3",
"modified": "2026-09-30T21:32:09Z",
"published": "2026-09-30T21:32:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zeroclaw-labs/zeroclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-93f6-34w8-5g98"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-101885"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zeroclaw-labs/zeroclaw/commit/432e034d3cb024610d5916a2f328678d151c1dd5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zeroclaw-labs/zeroclaw/blob/v0.8.4/crates/zeroclaw-plugins/src/host.rs#L238-L273"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/zeroclaw-labs/zeroclaw/releases/tag/v0.8.5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/zeroclaw-before-0.8.5-path-traversal-via-plugin-manifest-wasm-path"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-7WPJ-VVMV-PGM8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-28 14:44 – Updated: 2026-07-28 14:44Impact
@wakaru/cli is vulnerable to arbitrary file write when unpacking a crafted JavaScript bundle with --unpack.
Bundle-controlled module filenames were sanitized before writing extracted modules to the output directory. A crafted filename containing overlapping path traversal characters, such as ....//, could be transformed into ../ after sanitization. This allowed the final output path to escape the intended output directory.
An attacker who can cause a user to run wakaru --unpack on a malicious bundle may be able to write files outside the selected output directory. Depending on the target path and user environment, this may lead to code execution.
Affected versions: >=1.0.0 <1.4.0.
Patches
The issue has been patched in @wakaru/cli@1.4.0.
Users should upgrade to:
npm install @wakaru/cli@latest
or specifically:
npm install @wakaru/cli@1.4.0
Workarounds
Do not run wakaru --unpack on untrusted or unknown bundles with affected versions.
If upgrading immediately is not possible, avoid using `--unpack on files that may be attacker-controlled.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@wakaru/cli"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-54545"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-28T14:44:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\n`@wakaru/cli` is vulnerable to arbitrary file write when unpacking a crafted JavaScript bundle with `--unpack`.\n\nBundle-controlled module filenames were sanitized before writing extracted modules to the output directory. A crafted filename containing overlapping path traversal characters, such as `....//`, could be transformed into `../` after sanitization. This allowed the final output path to escape the intended output directory.\n\nAn attacker who can cause a user to run `wakaru --unpack` on a malicious bundle may be able to write files outside the selected output directory. Depending on the target path and user environment, this may lead to code execution.\n\nAffected versions: `\u003e=1.0.0 \u003c1.4.0`.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue has been patched in `@wakaru/cli@1.4.0`.\n\nUsers should upgrade to:\n\n```sh\nnpm install @wakaru/cli@latest\n```\n\nor specifically:\n```\nnpm install @wakaru/cli@1.4.0\n```\n\n### Workarounds\n\nDo not run `wakaru --unpack` on untrusted or unknown bundles with affected versions.\n\nIf upgrading immediately is not possible, avoid using `--unpack on files that may be attacker-controlled.",
"id": "GHSA-7wpj-vvmv-pgm8",
"modified": "2026-07-28T14:44:02Z",
"published": "2026-07-28T14:44:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pionxzh/wakaru/security/advisories/GHSA-7wpj-vvmv-pgm8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pionxzh/wakaru/commit/1d30383b20a6f768786b8ada2f1b0945de13c316"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/pionxzh/wakaru"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pionxzh/wakaru/releases/tag/v1.4.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "@wakaru/cli arbitrary file write during bundle unpack"
}
GHSA-7WVQ-6QH5-GV74
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-29 18:31 – Updated: 2026-06-06 09:31Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in TUBITAK BILGEM Software Technologies Research Institute Pardus Software Center allows Path Traversal.
This issue affects Pardus Software Center: before 1.0.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-5166"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-29T16:16:26Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (\u0027Path Traversal\u0027) vulnerability in TUBITAK BILGEM Software Technologies Research Institute Pardus Software Center allows Path Traversal.\n\nThis issue affects Pardus Software Center: before 1.0.3.",
"id": "GHSA-7wvq-6qh5-gv74",
"modified": "2026-06-06T09:31:16Z",
"published": "2026-04-29T18:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5166"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://siberguvenlik.gov.tr/guvenlik-bildirimleri/detay/tr-26-0131"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.usom.gov.tr/bildirim/tr-26-0131"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7WW4-96V9-FHWM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-23 09:30 – Updated: 2026-09-23 09:30A path traversal vulnerability exists in Foxit PDF Editor/Reader's handling of embedded PDF resources. Insufficient validation of resource file paths may allow files to be written outside their intended locations, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-91801"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-23T08:17:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A path traversal vulnerability exists in Foxit PDF Editor/Reader\u0027s handling of embedded PDF resources. Insufficient validation of resource file paths may allow files to be written outside their intended locations, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-7ww4-96v9-fhwm",
"modified": "2026-09-23T09:30:29Z",
"published": "2026-09-23T09:30:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-91801"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.foxit.com/support/security-bulletins.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7WW7-RP6J-6VRG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:06 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:06Lack of authentication or validation in motor_load_more, motor_gallery_load_more, motor_quick_view and motor_project_quick_view AJAX handlers of the Motor WordPress theme before 3.1.0 allows an unauthenticated attacker access to arbitrary files in the server file system, and to execute arbitrary php scripts found on the server file system. We found no vulnerability for uploading files with this theme, so any scripts to be executed must already be on the server file system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-24375"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-06T11:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Lack of authentication or validation in motor_load_more, motor_gallery_load_more, motor_quick_view and motor_project_quick_view AJAX handlers of the Motor WordPress theme before 3.1.0 allows an unauthenticated attacker access to arbitrary files in the server file system, and to execute arbitrary php scripts found on the server file system. We found no vulnerability for uploading files with this theme, so any scripts to be executed must already be on the server file system.",
"id": "GHSA-7ww7-rp6j-6vrg",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:06:57Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:06:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-24375"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jetpack.com/2021/06/09/motor-wordpress-theme-vulnerabilities"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/d9518429-79d3-4b13-88ff-3722d05efa9f"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7X2G-4JVC-4X6P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-10 18:30 – Updated: 2023-12-13 19:30JFinalCMS 5.0.0 could allow a remote attacker to read files via ../ Directory Traversal in the /common/down/file fileKey parameter.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "com.jfinal:jfinal"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "5.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-50449"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-12-13T19:30:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-10T18:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "JFinalCMS 5.0.0 could allow a remote attacker to read files via ../ Directory Traversal in the /common/down/file fileKey parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-7x2g-4jvc-4x6p",
"modified": "2023-12-13T19:30:49Z",
"published": "2023-12-10T18:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-50449"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitee.com/heyewei/JFinalcms/issues/I7WGC6"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jfinal/jfinal"
}
],
"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": "Directory Traversal in JFinalCMS"
}
GHSA-7X32-HRHC-WC59
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-12 00:00 – Updated: 2022-07-16 00:00The pleomax00/flask-mongo-skel repository through 2012-11-01 on GitHub allows absolute path traversal because the Flask send_file function is used unsafely.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31551"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-07-11T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The pleomax00/flask-mongo-skel repository through 2012-11-01 on GitHub allows absolute path traversal because the Flask send_file function is used unsafely.",
"id": "GHSA-7x32-hrhc-wc59",
"modified": "2022-07-16T00:00:28Z",
"published": "2022-07-12T00:00:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/github/securitylab/issues/669#issuecomment-1117265726"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7X36-V2P9-4W5J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-06 21:31 – Updated: 2025-11-06 21:31Netgate pfSense CE Suricata Path Traversal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to create arbitrary files on affected installations of Netgate pfSense. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability.
The specific flaw exists within the Suricata package. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied path prior to using it in file operations. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to create files in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-28085.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-12490"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-06T20:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Netgate pfSense CE Suricata Path Traversal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to create arbitrary files on affected installations of Netgate pfSense. Authentication is required to exploit this vulnerability.\n\nThe specific flaw exists within the Suricata package. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied path prior to using it in file operations. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to create files in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-28085.",
"id": "GHSA-7x36-v2p9-4w5j",
"modified": "2025-11-06T21:31:30Z",
"published": "2025-11-06T21:31:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12490"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-ports/commit/36b2303dfca35a1183d76f26bcc6ce26d4ea682d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-979"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7X38-847R-875X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-20 06:31 – Updated: 2024-08-20 06:31The Contact Form by Bit Form: Multi Step Form, Calculation Contact Form, Payment Contact Form & Custom Contact Form builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the iconRemove function in versions 2.0 to 2.13.4. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Administrator-level access and above, to delete arbitrary files on the server, which can easily lead to remote code execution when the right file is deleted (such as wp-config.php).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-7782"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-20T04:15:11Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Contact Form by Bit Form: Multi Step Form, Calculation Contact Form, Payment Contact Form \u0026 Custom Contact Form builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the iconRemove function in versions 2.0 to 2.13.4. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Administrator-level access and above, to delete arbitrary files on the server, which can easily lead to remote code execution when the right file is deleted (such as wp-config.php).",
"id": "GHSA-7x38-847r-875x",
"modified": "2024-08-20T06:31:37Z",
"published": "2024-08-20T06:31:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-7782"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/bit-form/tags/2.13.0/includes/Admin/AdminAjax.php#L1271"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/d4da8ead-326f-4c93-b56d-8bfa643d7906?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7X45-PHMR-9WQP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-30 20:16 – Updated: 2024-10-01 19:20Summary
An unsafe extraction is being performed using shutil.unpack_archive() from a remotely retrieved tarball. Which may lead to the writing of the extracted files to an unintended location. This vulnerability is sometimes called a TarSlip or a ZipSlip variant.
Details
Unpacking files using the high-level function shutil.unpack_archive() from a potentially malicious tarball without validating that the destination file path remained within the intended destination directory may cause files to be overwritten outside the destination directory.
As can be seen in the vulnerable snippet code source, an archive is being retrieved using the download_file() function from a remote location which is a user-provided permanent storage bucket s3. Immediately after being retrieved, the tarball is unsafely unpacked using the function shutil.unpack_archive().
The vulnerable code is L128..L129 in fs.py file.
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
if 's3_credentials' in self.config['permanent_storage']:
self.s3 = boto3.client('s3', **self.config['permanent_storage']['s3_credentials'])
else:
self.s3 = boto3.client('s3')
# User provided remote storage!
self.bucket = self.config['permanent_storage']['bucket']
def get(self, local_name, base_dir):
remote_name = local_name
remote_ziped_name = f'{remote_name}.tar.gz'
local_ziped_name = f'{local_name}.tar.gz'
local_ziped_path = os.path.join(base_dir, local_ziped_name)
os.makedirs(base_dir, exist_ok=True)
# Retrieve a potentially malicious tarball
self.s3.download_file(self.bucket, remote_ziped_name, local_ziped_path)
# Perform an unsafe extraction
shutil.unpack_archive(local_ziped_path, base_dir)
os.system(f'chmod -R 777 {base_dir}')
os.remove(local_ziped_path)
PoC
The following PoC is provided for illustration purposes only. It showcases the risk of extracting a non-harmless text file sim4n6.txt to one of the parent locations rather than the intended current folder.
> tar --list -f archive.tar
tar: Removing leading "../../../" from member names
../../../sim4n6.txt
> python3
Python 3.10.6 (main, Nov 2 2022, 18:53:38) [GCC 11.3.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import shutil
>>> shutil.unpack_archive("archive.tar")
>>> exit()
> test -f ../../../sim4n6.txt && echo "sim4n6.txt exists"
sim4n6.txt exists
Attack Scenario
An attacker could craft a malicious tarball with a filename path, such as ../../../../../../../../etc/passwd, and then serve the archive remotely using a personal bucket s3, thus, retrieve the tarball through mindsdb and overwrite the system files of the hosting server.
Mitigation
Potential mitigation could be to:
- Use a safer module, like zipfile.
- Validate the location of the extracted files and discard those with malicious paths such as relative path .. or absolute path such as /etc/password.
- Perform a checksum verification for the retrieved archive, but hard-coding the hashes may be cumbersome and difficult to manage.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "mindsdb"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "22.11.4.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-23522"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-03-30T20:16:33Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-30T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nAn unsafe extraction is being performed using `shutil.unpack_archive()` from a remotely retrieved tarball. Which may lead to the writing of the extracted files to an unintended location. This vulnerability is sometimes called a **TarSlip** or a **ZipSlip variant**.\n\n### Details\n\nUnpacking files using the high-level function `shutil.unpack_archive()` from a potentially malicious tarball without validating that the destination file path remained within the intended destination directory may cause files to be overwritten outside the destination directory.\n\nAs can be seen in the vulnerable snippet code source, an archive is being retrieved using the `download_file()` function from a remote location which is a user-provided permanent storage bucket `s3`. Immediately after being retrieved, the tarball is unsafely unpacked using the function `shutil.unpack_archive()`.\n\nThe vulnerable code is [L128..L129](https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb/blob/69c76e727b8067f32b06ab83bb835a8c416c4f21/mindsdb/interfaces/storage/fs.py#L128..L129) in [fs.py](https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb/blob/69c76e727b8067f32b06ab83bb835a8c416c4f21/mindsdb/interfaces/storage/fs.py) file.\n\n```python3\n def __init__(self):\n super().__init__()\n if \u0027s3_credentials\u0027 in self.config[\u0027permanent_storage\u0027]:\n self.s3 = boto3.client(\u0027s3\u0027, **self.config[\u0027permanent_storage\u0027][\u0027s3_credentials\u0027])\n else:\n self.s3 = boto3.client(\u0027s3\u0027)\n \n # User provided remote storage!\n self.bucket = self.config[\u0027permanent_storage\u0027][\u0027bucket\u0027] \n\n def get(self, local_name, base_dir):\n remote_name = local_name\n remote_ziped_name = f\u0027{remote_name}.tar.gz\u0027\n local_ziped_name = f\u0027{local_name}.tar.gz\u0027\n local_ziped_path = os.path.join(base_dir, local_ziped_name)\n os.makedirs(base_dir, exist_ok=True)\n \n # Retrieve a potentially malicious tarball\n self.s3.download_file(self.bucket, remote_ziped_name, local_ziped_path)\n\n # Perform an unsafe extraction\n shutil.unpack_archive(local_ziped_path, base_dir)\n\n os.system(f\u0027chmod -R 777 {base_dir}\u0027)\n os.remove(local_ziped_path)\n``` \n\n### PoC\n\nThe following PoC is provided for illustration purposes only. It showcases the risk of extracting a non-harmless text file `sim4n6.txt` to one of the parent locations rather than the intended current folder.\n\n```bash\n\u003e tar --list -f archive.tar\ntar: Removing leading \"../../../\" from member names\n../../../sim4n6.txt\n\n\u003e python3 \nPython 3.10.6 (main, Nov 2 2022, 18:53:38) [GCC 11.3.0] on linux\nType \"help\", \"copyright\", \"credits\" or \"license\" for more information.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e import shutil\n\u003e\u003e\u003e shutil.unpack_archive(\"archive.tar\")\n\u003e\u003e\u003e exit()\n\n\u003e test -f ../../../sim4n6.txt \u0026\u0026 echo \"sim4n6.txt exists\"\nsim4n6.txt exists\n```\n\n### Attack Scenario\n\nAn attacker could craft a malicious tarball with a filename path, such as `../../../../../../../../etc/passwd`, and then serve the archive remotely using a personal bucket `s3`, thus, retrieve the tarball through **mindsdb** and overwrite the system files of the hosting server. \n\n### Mitigation\n\nPotential mitigation could be to:\n - Use a safer module, like `zipfile`.\n - Validate the location of the extracted files and discard those with malicious paths such as relative path `..` or absolute path such as `/etc/password`.\n - Perform a checksum verification for the retrieved archive, but hard-coding the hashes may be cumbersome and difficult to manage.",
"id": "GHSA-7x45-phmr-9wqp",
"modified": "2024-10-01T19:20:52Z",
"published": "2023-03-30T20:16:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb/security/advisories/GHSA-7x45-phmr-9wqp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-23522"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb/blob/69c76e727b8067f32b06ab83bb835a8c416c4f21/mindsdb/interfaces/storage/fs.py"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb/blob/69c76e727b8067f32b06ab83bb835a8c416c4f21/mindsdb/interfaces/storage/fs.py#L128..L129"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/mindsdb/mindsdb/releases/tag/v22.11.4.3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/mindsdb/PYSEC-2023-26.yaml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Arbitrary file write in mindsdb when Extracting Tarballs retrieved from a remote location "
}
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.