CWE-73
AllowedExternal Control of File Name or Path
Abstraction: Base · Status: Draft
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
1180 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7J5W-7R7X-9V27
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-04 18:02 – Updated: 2026-09-04 18:02Maintainer resolution
The CodeWhale maintainers validated this report. The affected package ranges are recorded in the advisory metadata. Version 0.8.64 contains the fix in commit 9a34b5034d29f05d1f28fa61b04719ca6a741020. Users should upgrade to 0.8.64 or later. The original reporter analysis is preserved below.
Argument Injection in git_show Tool Allows Arbitrary File Write Without Approval
Overview
The git_show tool in DeepSeek-TUI executes git show with the model-supplied rev parameter passed unvalidated into the argv. git show honours the --output=<path> option, so a rev value beginning with --output= is interpreted as a flag rather than a revision. The tool is registered with ApprovalRequirement::Auto and declares ToolCapability::ReadOnly, so the write happens without a user prompt and contradicts the capability the catalog advertises to the model and the user.
This is the same vulnerability class as GHSA-72w5-pf8h-xfp4 (CVE-2026-45374): an auto-approved tool produces an effect outside the boundary the user consented to.
Impact
A malicious repository combined with prompt injection, the threat model already documented in CVE-2026-45311 (auto-loaded AGENTS.md is treated as instructions by the model) yields an unprompted arbitrary file write at the privilege of the user running DeepSeek-TUI.
Useful targets reachable as the invoking user:
~/.ssh/authorized_keys~/.bashrc,~/.zshrc,~/.profile~/.gitconfig(chainable into RCE viacore.editor)~/.config/**,~/.aws/credentials, project source files
The written content is the git show rendering of HEAD commit hash, author/date header, indented commit message, and (when patch=true) diff hunks. The commit subject, body, author identity, and diff text are entirely attacker-controlled because the attacker owns the repository HEAD. The leading commit <hash> line prevents clean overwrite of formats that reject unknown tokens, but is silently ignorable in files parsed as comments-or-text (crontab, dotfiles consumed by tolerant readers) and is irrelevant for the destructive/DoS sub-case (clobbering ~/.ssh/authorized_keys locks the user out; clobbering a project file corrupts source).
Technical Details
Root Cause
crates/tui/src/tools/git_history.rs:
// L196-198
fn approval_requirement(&self) -> ApprovalRequirement {
ApprovalRequirement::Auto
}
// L204-228 (excerpt)
async fn execute(&self, input: Value, context: &ToolContext) -> Result<ToolResult, ToolError> {
let rev = required_str(&input, "rev")?;
...
let mut args = vec![
"show".to_string(),
"--no-color".to_string(),
"--no-ext-diff".to_string(),
];
if patch { args.push(format!("--unified={unified}")); }
else { args.push("--no-patch".to_string()); }
if stat { args.push("--stat".to_string()); }
args.push(rev.to_string()); // unvalidated, no `--end-of-options` sentinel
...
}
The JSON schema for rev is {"type": "string"} (L161-164) with no pattern, no enum, and no length cap. required_str performs no semantic validation. The argv has no --end-of-options separator between the trailing options and rev, so git's option parser keeps consuming flags from rev.
The same pattern in git_blame (L322-388) is tracked in a separate advisory.
Why --output Works
git show shares its option parser with git log / git diff, which expose --output=<file>. The implementation opens the path with O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC and writes the formatted output there. No permission check beyond the filesystem's own running as the user is sufficient to clobber anything the user owns.
Proof of Concept
The vulnerable argv assembled by the tool when invoked with
{"rev": "--output=/home/victim/.bashrc"} is equivalent to:
git show --no-color --no-ext-diff --no-patch --stat --output=/home/victim/.bashrc
Reproduced against system git as a non-root user:
$ id
uid=1001(lowtest) gid=1001(lowtest) groups=1001(lowtest)
$ cd /tmp/lp && git init -q
$ echo a > a.txt && git add a.txt
$ git -c user.email=a@b -c user.name=a commit -q -m "lol"
$ git show --no-color --no-patch "--output=/home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered" HEAD
$ ls -la /home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered
-rw-rw-r-- 1 lowtest lowtest 128 May 19 07:05 /home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered
End-to-end exploitation path:
- Attacker publishes a repository whose
AGENTS.mdinstructs the model to callgit_showwithrevset to a crafted--output=string targeting a file in the victim's home directory. The same auto-load pathway documented in CVE-2026-45311 applies. - Victim opens the repository in DeepSeek-TUI and issues any prompt that exercises the agent loop.
- The model issues the tool call. Because
approval_requirement()returnsAuto, no approval UI is shown. git show --output=<path>overwrites the target file with attacker-controlled commit metadata and diff text.
Remediation
Two changes in crates/tui/src/tools/git_history.rs:
Insert an end-of-options sentinel before rev so git stops parsing flags:
rust
args.push("--end-of-options".to_string());
args.push(rev.to_string());
Reject rev values that begin with - (or restrict to a revision-shape
regex ^[A-Za-z0-9._/^~@:{}-]+$ after the leading character check):
rust
if rev.starts_with('-') {
return Err(ToolError::invalid_input("rev must not start with '-'"));
}
A regression test mirroring run_tests_requires_user_approval (test_runner.rs:197) should assert that rev = "--output=/tmp/x" is rejected.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "deepseek-tui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.3.27"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.8.41"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "deepseek-tui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.3.27"
},
{
"fixed": "0.8.41"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "codewhale-tui"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.8.41"
},
{
"fixed": "0.8.64"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "codewhale"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.8.41"
},
{
"fixed": "0.8.64"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-75913"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73",
"CWE-88"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-04T18:02:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-18T16:18:23Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Maintainer resolution\n\nThe CodeWhale maintainers validated this report. The affected package ranges are recorded in the advisory metadata. Version 0.8.64 contains the fix in commit 9a34b5034d29f05d1f28fa61b04719ca6a741020. Users should upgrade to 0.8.64 or later. The original reporter analysis is preserved below.\n\n# Argument Injection in `git_show` Tool Allows Arbitrary File Write Without Approval\n\n## Overview\n\nThe `git_show` tool in DeepSeek-TUI executes `git show` with the model-supplied `rev` parameter passed unvalidated into the argv. `git show` honours the `--output=\u003cpath\u003e` option, so a `rev` value beginning with `--output=` is interpreted as a flag rather than a revision. The tool is registered with `ApprovalRequirement::Auto` and declares `ToolCapability::ReadOnly`, so the write happens without a user prompt and contradicts the capability the catalog advertises to the model and the user.\n\nThis is the same vulnerability class as GHSA-72w5-pf8h-xfp4 (CVE-2026-45374): an auto-approved tool produces an effect outside the boundary the user consented to.\n\n## Impact\n\nA malicious repository combined with prompt injection, the threat model already documented in CVE-2026-45311 (auto-loaded `AGENTS.md` is treated as instructions by the model) yields an unprompted arbitrary file write at the privilege of the user running DeepSeek-TUI.\n\nUseful targets reachable as the invoking user:\n\n- `~/.ssh/authorized_keys`\n- `~/.bashrc`, `~/.zshrc`, `~/.profile`\n- `~/.gitconfig` (chainable into RCE via `core.editor`)\n- `~/.config/**`, `~/.aws/credentials`, project source files\n\nThe written content is the `git show` rendering of HEAD commit hash, author/date header, indented commit message, and (when `patch=true`) diff hunks. The commit subject, body, author identity, and diff text are entirely attacker-controlled because the attacker owns the repository HEAD. The leading `commit \u003chash\u003e` line prevents clean overwrite of formats that reject unknown tokens, but is silently ignorable in files parsed as comments-or-text (crontab, dotfiles consumed by tolerant readers) and is irrelevant for the destructive/DoS sub-case (clobbering `~/.ssh/authorized_keys` locks the user out; clobbering a project file corrupts source).\n\n## Technical Details\n\n### Root Cause\n\n`crates/tui/src/tools/git_history.rs`:\n\n```rust\n// L196-198\nfn approval_requirement(\u0026self) -\u003e ApprovalRequirement {\n ApprovalRequirement::Auto\n}\n\n// L204-228 (excerpt)\nasync fn execute(\u0026self, input: Value, context: \u0026ToolContext) -\u003e Result\u003cToolResult, ToolError\u003e {\n let rev = required_str(\u0026input, \"rev\")?;\n ...\n let mut args = vec![\n \"show\".to_string(),\n \"--no-color\".to_string(),\n \"--no-ext-diff\".to_string(),\n ];\n if patch { args.push(format!(\"--unified={unified}\")); }\n else { args.push(\"--no-patch\".to_string()); }\n if stat { args.push(\"--stat\".to_string()); }\n args.push(rev.to_string()); // unvalidated, no `--end-of-options` sentinel\n ...\n}\n```\n\nThe JSON schema for `rev` is `{\"type\": \"string\"}` (L161-164) with no `pattern`, no enum, and no length cap. `required_str` performs no semantic validation. The argv has no `--end-of-options` separator between the trailing options and `rev`, so git\u0027s option parser keeps consuming flags from `rev`.\n\nThe same pattern in `git_blame` (L322-388) is tracked in a separate advisory.\n\n### Why `--output` Works\n\n`git show` shares its option parser with `git log` / `git diff`, which expose `--output=\u003cfile\u003e`. The implementation opens the path with `O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC` and writes the formatted output there. No permission check beyond the filesystem\u0027s own running as the user is sufficient to clobber anything the user owns.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\nThe vulnerable argv assembled by the tool when invoked with\n`{\"rev\": \"--output=/home/victim/.bashrc\"}` is equivalent to:\n\n```\ngit show --no-color --no-ext-diff --no-patch --stat --output=/home/victim/.bashrc\n```\n\nReproduced against system `git` as a non-root user:\n\n```\n$ id\nuid=1001(lowtest) gid=1001(lowtest) groups=1001(lowtest)\n\n$ cd /tmp/lp \u0026\u0026 git init -q\n$ echo a \u003e a.txt \u0026\u0026 git add a.txt\n$ git -c user.email=a@b -c user.name=a commit -q -m \"lol\"\n\n$ git show --no-color --no-patch \"--output=/home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered\" HEAD\n$ ls -la /home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered\n-rw-rw-r-- 1 lowtest lowtest 128 May 19 07:05 /home/lowtest/.bashrc_clobbered\n```\n\nEnd-to-end exploitation path:\n\n- Attacker publishes a repository whose `AGENTS.md` instructs the model to call `git_show` with `rev` set to a crafted `--output=` string targeting a file in the victim\u0027s home directory. The same auto-load pathway documented in CVE-2026-45311 applies.\n- Victim opens the repository in DeepSeek-TUI and issues any prompt that exercises the agent loop.\n- The model issues the tool call. Because `approval_requirement()` returns `Auto`, no approval UI is shown.\n- `git show --output=\u003cpath\u003e` overwrites the target file with attacker-controlled commit metadata and diff text.\n\n## Remediation\n\nTwo changes in `crates/tui/src/tools/git_history.rs`:\n\nInsert an end-of-options sentinel before `rev` so git stops parsing flags:\n\n ```rust\n args.push(\"--end-of-options\".to_string());\n args.push(rev.to_string());\n ```\n\nReject `rev` values that begin with `-` (or restrict to a revision-shape\n regex `^[A-Za-z0-9._/^~@:{}-]+$` after the leading character check):\n\n ```rust\n if rev.starts_with(\u0027-\u0027) {\n return Err(ToolError::invalid_input(\"rev must not start with \u0027-\u0027\"));\n }\n ```\n\nA regression test mirroring `run_tests_requires_user_approval` (`test_runner.rs:197`) should assert that `rev = \"--output=/tmp/x\"` is rejected.",
"id": "GHSA-7j5w-7r7x-9v27",
"modified": "2026-09-04T18:02:37Z",
"published": "2026-09-04T18:02:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Hmbown/CodeWhale/security/advisories/GHSA-7j5w-7r7x-9v27"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-75913"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Hmbown/CodeWhale/commit/9a34b5034d29f05d1f28fa61b04719ca6a741020"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Hmbown/CodeWhale"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/codewhale-before-argument-injection-via-git-show"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "CodeWhale: Argument Injection in `git_show` Tool Allows Arbitrary File Write Without Approval"
}
GHSA-7JV5-HFJX-C9XP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-25 06:30 – Updated: 2025-03-25 06:30An External Control of File Name or Path vulnerability in the APROL Web Portal used in B&R APROL <4.4-005P may allow an authenticated network-based attacker to access data from the file system.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-10210"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-25T06:15:37Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An External Control of File Name or Path vulnerability in the APROL Web Portal used in B\u0026R APROL \u003c4.4-005P may allow an authenticated network-based attacker to access data from the file system.",
"id": "GHSA-7jv5-hfjx-c9xp",
"modified": "2025-03-25T06:30:27Z",
"published": "2025-03-25T06:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-10210"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.br-automation.com/fileadmin/SA24P015-77573c08.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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-7PGC-VJ4F-CXQ5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-21 09:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:33The SMSA Shipping(official) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the smsa_delete_label() function in all versions up to, and including, 2.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-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-2024-12066"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-21T07:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The SMSA Shipping(official) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the smsa_delete_label() function in all versions up to, and including, 2.2. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-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-7pgc-vj4f-cxq5",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:33:46Z",
"published": "2024-12-21T09:30:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-12066"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/smsa-shipping-official/tags/2.3/smsa-express-shipping.php#L251"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/smsa-shipping-official/tags/2.4/smsa-express-shipping.php#L246"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/smsa-shipping-official/trunk/smsa-express-shipping.php#L235"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/29d72347-ba49-45c6-a964-2c75064ac866?source=cve"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-7PQP-C9F9-X39X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-07 09:30 – Updated: 2025-03-07 09:30The CS Framework plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read in all versions up to, and including, 6.9 via the get_widget_settings_json() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to read the contents of arbitrary files on the server, which can contain sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-12036"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-07T09:15:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The CS Framework plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read in all versions up to, and including, 6.9 via the get_widget_settings_json() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to read the contents of arbitrary files on the server, which can contain sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-7pqp-c9f9-x39x",
"modified": "2025-03-07T09:30:34Z",
"published": "2025-03-07T09:30:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-12036"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://themeforest.net/item/jobcareer-job-board-responsive-wordpress-theme/14221636"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/5ed1978e-1dd7-45d3-829a-1a75c1789827?source=cve"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-7PWX-W32Q-3P7R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-14 18:30 – Updated: 2024-05-14 18:30A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM CROSSBOW (All versions < V5.5). The affected systems allow a privileged user to upload generic files to the root installation directory of the system. By replacing specific files, an attacker could tamper specific files or even achieve remote code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-27943"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-434",
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-14T16:16:28Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM CROSSBOW (All versions \u003c V5.5). The affected systems allow a privileged user to upload generic files to the root installation directory of the system. By replacing specific files, an attacker could tamper specific files or even achieve remote code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-7pwx-w32q-3p7r",
"modified": "2024-05-14T18:30:59Z",
"published": "2024-05-14T18:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-27943"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-916916.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7QH7-857W-WVVG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-12 06:30 – Updated: 2026-08-12 21:31The WP Photo Album Plus WordPress plugin before 9.2.07.002 does not validate a client-controlled value used to build a file path in one of its public endpoint actions, and performs no authorisation check on it, allowing unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary ZIP archives on the server, including ones stored outside the web root.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-18048"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-12T06:19:29Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The WP Photo Album Plus WordPress plugin before 9.2.07.002 does not validate a client-controlled value used to build a file path in one of its public endpoint actions, and performs no authorisation check on it, allowing unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary ZIP archives on the server, including ones stored outside the web root.",
"id": "GHSA-7qh7-857w-wvvg",
"modified": "2026-08-12T21:31:34Z",
"published": "2026-08-12T06:30:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-18048"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/fbc145d3-a582-4975-bc6b-e56e633e51e6"
}
],
"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-7QMG-GRCP-QF25
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-12 18:23 – Updated: 2026-07-15 21:49Summary
A vulnerability exists that allows an authenticated administrator with access to GeoServer's security system to pass arbitrary file names to the Master Password Dump web page and create files containing the master password in plaintext. The provided file name must be an absolute path to the target file, the target file can not already exist and all parent directories must already exist.
Details
When dumping the master password, GeoServer will use the provided file name with minimal validation as long as it is a java.io.File path. The only limitation is that the fix for a previous, unrelated vulnerability prevents relative path traversal here but absolute paths can be used to access arbitrary files. GeoServer does not enforce a maximum password length by default which allows an administrator to place malicious code into their password which could then be dumped into a JSP file.
Impact
Remote Code Execution (High severity)
This vulnerability can lead to executing arbitrary code if GeoServer is deployed in an environment where an attacker can dynamically deploy and execute a JSP file. This is possible if the geoserver.war file is simply placed into the webapps directory of a default Tomcat installation.
NTLM Hash Disclosure (Moderate severity)
If GeoServer is deployed in a Windows operating system and the GeoServer administrator does not already have access to the Windows account running the GeoServer process, it may be possible for the administrator to make GeoServer trigger an outbound NTLM request to a remote, attacker-controlled server and gain access to the NTLM hash or user password for use in future attacks.
Denial of Service (Low severity)
This vulnerability allows writing a file to any location where the GeoServer process has write permissions which could still potentially cause some kind of denial of service.
Mitigation
GeoServer installations where the web interface is either disabled or completely removed are not affected since the vulnerability exists in one of the web pages.
Resources
https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOS-11852 https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/8584
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.27.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.27.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.27.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.27.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.geoserver.web:gs-web-sec-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.27.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.27.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.26.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.geoserver.web:gs-web-sec-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.26.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.26.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.geoserver.web:gs-web-app"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.26.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-52465"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-12T18:23:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-18T16:16:52Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nA vulnerability exists that allows an authenticated administrator with access to GeoServer\u0027s security system to pass arbitrary file names to the Master Password Dump web page and create files containing the master password in plaintext. The provided file name must be an absolute path to the target file, the target file can not already exist and all parent directories must already exist.\n\n### Details\nWhen dumping the master password, GeoServer will use the provided file name with minimal validation as long as it is a java.io.File path. The only limitation is that the fix for a previous, unrelated vulnerability prevents relative path traversal here but absolute paths can be used to access arbitrary files. GeoServer does not enforce a maximum password length by default which allows an administrator to place malicious code into their password which could then be dumped into a JSP file.\n\n### Impact\n#### Remote Code Execution (High severity)\nThis vulnerability can lead to executing arbitrary code if GeoServer is deployed in an environment where an attacker can dynamically deploy and execute a JSP file. This is possible if the geoserver.war file is simply placed into the webapps directory of a default Tomcat installation.\n\n#### NTLM Hash Disclosure (Moderate severity)\nIf GeoServer is deployed in a Windows operating system and the GeoServer administrator does not already have access to the Windows account running the GeoServer process, it may be possible for the administrator to make GeoServer trigger an outbound NTLM request to a remote, attacker-controlled server and gain access to the NTLM hash or user password for use in future attacks.\n\n#### Denial of Service (Low severity)\nThis vulnerability allows writing a file to any location where the GeoServer process has write permissions which could still potentially cause some kind of denial of service.\n\n### Mitigation\nGeoServer installations where the web interface is either disabled or completely removed are not affected since the vulnerability exists in one of the web pages.\n\n### Resources\nhttps://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOS-11852\nhttps://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/8584",
"id": "GHSA-7qmg-grcp-qf25",
"modified": "2026-07-15T21:49:58Z",
"published": "2026-06-12T18:23:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/security/advisories/GHSA-7qmg-grcp-qf25"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-52465"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/8584"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOS-11852"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://research.checkpoint.com/2025/cve-2025-24054-ntlm-exploit-in-the-wild"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "GeoServer has an arbitrary file write vulnerability in its Master Password Dump Page"
}
GHSA-7QXV-P6JQ-6VF6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-13 18:31 – Updated: 2024-08-13 18:31Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-38173"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-13T18:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-7qxv-p6jq-6vf6",
"modified": "2024-08-13T18:31:17Z",
"published": "2024-08-13T18:31:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-38173"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-38173"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7W3C-PQVW-2FV2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-08 18:33 – Updated: 2024-10-08 18:33Microsoft OpenSSH for Windows Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-43581"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-08T18:15:25Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Microsoft OpenSSH for Windows Remote Code Execution Vulnerability",
"id": "GHSA-7w3c-pqvw-2fv2",
"modified": "2024-10-08T18:33:16Z",
"published": "2024-10-08T18:33:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-43581"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2024-43581"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7W4R-XXR6-XRCJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-09-06 18:31 – Updated: 2024-09-09 18:30SPIP before 4.3.2, 4.2.16, and 4.1.18 is vulnerable to a command injection issue. A remote and unauthenticated attacker can execute arbitrary operating system commands by sending a crafted multipart file upload HTTP request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-8517"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-646",
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-09-06T16:15:03Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "SPIP before 4.3.2, 4.2.16, and \n4.1.18 is vulnerable to a command injection issue. A \nremote and unauthenticated attacker can execute arbitrary operating system commands by sending a crafted multipart file upload HTTP request.",
"id": "GHSA-7w4r-xxr6-xrcj",
"modified": "2024-09-09T18:30:29Z",
"published": "2024-09-06T18:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-8517"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.spip.net/Mise-a-jour-critique-de-securite-sortie-de-SPIP-4-3-2-SPIP-4-2-16-SPIP-4-1-18.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://thinkloveshare.com/hacking/spip_preauth_rce_2024_part_2_a_big_upload"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vozec.fr/researchs/spip-preauth-rce-2024-big-upload"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vulncheck.com/advisories/spip-upload-rce"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation
When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, 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 provide this capability.
Mitigation
- Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory.
- Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
- This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
- Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
Mitigation
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-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
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).
Mitigation
Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
Mitigation
If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your 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.
Mitigation
Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
CAPEC-13: Subverting Environment Variable Values
The adversary directly or indirectly modifies environment variables used by or controlling the target software. The adversary's goal is to cause the target software to deviate from its expected operation in a manner that benefits the adversary.
CAPEC-267: Leverage Alternate Encoding
An adversary leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input or content used by applications such that the applications are ineffective at validating this encoding standard.
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-72: URL Encoding
This attack targets the encoding of the URL. An adversary can take advantage of the multiple way of encoding an URL and abuse the interpretation of the URL.
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.
CAPEC-80: Using UTF-8 Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic
This attack is a specific variation on leveraging alternate encodings to bypass validation logic. This attack leverages the possibility to encode potentially harmful input in UTF-8 and submit it to applications not expecting or effective at validating this encoding standard making input filtering difficult. UTF-8 (8-bit UCS/Unicode Transformation Format) is a variable-length character encoding for Unicode. Legal UTF-8 characters are one to four bytes long. However, early version of the UTF-8 specification got some entries wrong (in some cases it permitted overlong characters). UTF-8 encoders are supposed to use the "shortest possible" encoding, but naive decoders may accept encodings that are longer than necessary. According to the RFC 3629, a particularly subtle form of this attack can be carried out against a parser which performs security-critical validity checks against the UTF-8 encoded form of its input, but interprets certain illegal octet sequences as characters.