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.
1268 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-56HJ-453M-VXFV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-11 04:19 – Updated: 2025-10-02 15:31An authenticated file deletion vulnerability in the Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS® software enables an authenticated attacker with network access to the management web interface to delete certain files as the “nobody” user; this includes limited logs and configuration files but does not include system files.
The attacker must have network access to the management web interface to exploit this issue. You greatly reduce the risk of this issue by restricting access to the management web interface to only trusted internal IP addresses according to our recommended critical deployment guidelines https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/community-blogs/tips-amp-tricks-how-to-secure-the-management-access-of-your-palo/ba-p/464431 .
This issue affects Cloud NGFW. However, this issue does not affect Prisma® Access software.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-0124"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-11T02:15:18Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An authenticated file deletion vulnerability in the Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS\u00ae software enables an authenticated attacker with network access to the management web interface to delete certain files as the \u201cnobody\u201d user; this includes limited logs and configuration files but does not include system files.\n\nThe attacker must have network access to the management web interface to exploit this issue. You greatly reduce the risk of this issue by restricting access to the management web interface to only trusted internal IP addresses according to our recommended critical deployment guidelines https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/community-blogs/tips-amp-tricks-how-to-secure-the-management-access-of-your-palo/ba-p/464431 .\n\nThis issue affects Cloud NGFW. However, this issue does not affect Prisma\u00ae Access software.",
"id": "GHSA-56hj-453m-vxfv",
"modified": "2025-10-02T15:31:12Z",
"published": "2025-04-11T04:19:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0124"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/CVE-2025-0124"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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:N/R:U/V:C/RE:M/U:Amber",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-56V3-4WCG-G28H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-13 00:31 – Updated: 2026-08-13 15:34PDF::WebKit versions through 1.2 for Perl allow OS command injection via a 2-arg open() of the output path in to_pdf and of stylesheet paths in _style_tag_for.
to_pdf reads the generated PDF back from its path argument, and _style_tag_for reads each entry of the stylesheets list, by assigning the path to a local @ARGV and reading it with the diamond operator, which opens each @ARGV element with Perl's 2-arg open(). A value that begins or ends with a pipe ("| cmd", "cmd |") is run as a command rather than opened as a file, and one that begins with a redirect ("> path", ">> path") opens that path for write or append. to_file forwards its path argument to to_pdf and reaches the same read.
Any caller that forwards untrusted input as the output path or as a stylesheets entry can run a command under the process UID; with the "cmd |" form the command's output is returned in place of the PDF, and with the "> path" form the named file is truncated. Stylesheets may only be added to an HTML source, so a URL or file source exposes the output path alone.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-17431"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-13T00:17:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "PDF::WebKit versions through 1.2 for Perl allow OS command injection via a 2-arg open() of the output path in to_pdf and of stylesheet paths in _style_tag_for.\n\nto_pdf reads the generated PDF back from its path argument, and _style_tag_for reads each entry of the stylesheets list, by assigning the path to a local @ARGV and reading it with the diamond operator, which opens each @ARGV element with Perl\u0027s 2-arg open(). A value that begins or ends with a pipe (\"| cmd\", \"cmd |\") is run as a command rather than opened as a file, and one that begins with a redirect (\"\u003e path\", \"\u003e\u003e path\") opens that path for write or append. to_file forwards its path argument to to_pdf and reaches the same read.\n\nAny caller that forwards untrusted input as the output path or as a stylesheets entry can run a command under the process UID; with the \"cmd |\" form the command\u0027s output is returned in place of the PDF, and with the \"\u003e path\" form the named file is truncated. Stylesheets may only be added to an HTML source, so a URL or file source exposes the output path alone.",
"id": "GHSA-56v3-4wcg-g28h",
"modified": "2026-08-13T15:34:29Z",
"published": "2026-08-13T00:31:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-17431"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kingpong/perl-PDF-WebKit/issues/8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.metacpan.org/patches/P/PDF-WebKit/1.2/CVE-2026-17431-r1.patch"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wkhtmltopdf.org/status.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2026/08/13/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-57XV-4VP5-7V49
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-01 15:31 – Updated: 2025-04-01 21:31After selecting a malicious Windows .url shortcut from the local filesystem, an unexpected file could be uploaded.
This bug only affects Firefox on Windows. Other operating systems are unaffected. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 137 and Thunderbird < 137.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3033"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-01T13:15:41Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "After selecting a malicious Windows `.url` shortcut from the local filesystem, an unexpected file could be uploaded. \n*This bug only affects Firefox on Windows. Other operating systems are unaffected.* This vulnerability affects Firefox \u003c 137 and Thunderbird \u003c 137.",
"id": "GHSA-57xv-4vp5-7v49",
"modified": "2025-04-01T21:31:17Z",
"published": "2025-04-01T15:31:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3033"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1950056"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2025-20"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.mozilla.org/security/advisories/mfsa2025-23"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-58PQ-PHHQ-59VJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-11 00:30 – Updated: 2024-06-11 00:30Trend Micro VPN Proxy One Pro, version 5.8.1012 and below is vulnerable to an arbitrary file overwrite or create attack but is limited to local Denial of Service (DoS) and under specific conditions can lead to elevation of privileges.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-36473"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-10T22:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Trend Micro VPN Proxy One Pro, version 5.8.1012 and below is vulnerable to an arbitrary file overwrite or create attack but is limited to local Denial of Service (DoS) and under specific conditions can lead to elevation of privileges.",
"id": "GHSA-58pq-phhq-59vj",
"modified": "2024-06-11T00:30:40Z",
"published": "2024-06-11T00:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-36473"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpcenter.trendmicro.com/en-us/article/tmka-07247"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-24-585"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-59CR-6R3X-644W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-30 23:47 – Updated: 2026-09-30 23:47Affected: GitPython 3.1.61 (latest release) and main — git/objects/submodule/base.py. git diff 3.1.61 origin/main -- git/objects/submodule/ is empty, so both are identical here.
The gap
The fix for GHSA-hmq2-w58f-27jc added Submodule._validated_name() and wired it into update() and five siblings, closing the .gitmodules name → .git/modules/<name> traversal. The other attacker-controlled .gitmodules field, path, is read raw:
# git/objects/submodule/base.py:172-177
def _set_cache_(self, attr):
if attr in ("path", "_url", "_branch_path"):
reader = self.config_reader()
self.path = reader.get("path") # raw .gitmodules value
and GitPython's own containment guard is applied in only two of the places that consume it:
400: def _to_relative_path(cls, parent_repo, path) # the guard (abspath + commonpath containment)
542: path = cls._to_relative_path(repo, path) # add() — guarded
1041: module_checkout_path = self._to_relative_path(self.repo, module_path) # move() — guarded
update() validates only the name and then uses the path-derived absolute location directly:
788: self._validated_name(self.name) # NAME only
801: checkout_module_abspath = self.abspath # derived from self.path — unguarded
821: os.makedirs(checkout_module_abspath, exist_ok=True)
So path = ../../../tmp/escaped in an attacker-authored .gitmodules selects the directory that gets created and, on the clone path, populated from the submodule URL. The same absolute location is what force_remove hands to shutil.rmtree.
The asymmetry is the argument: this is not a missing concept — the project wrote _to_relative_path() precisely for this, and add()/move() use it. update() does not.
Honest limits (please read before rating)
- The most common flow is not affected.
Repo.clone_from(...)→repo.submodules→sm.update(init=True)re-derivespathfrom a canonical tree lookup, and real git refuses to check out a tree containing a..component, so an evil.gitmodulesnever lands in the working tree in the first place. A reachable trigger therefore requires the victim's code to name a non-HEAD commit (a historical-commit API such assubmodule_update(previous_commit=...)). - The researcher did not build that end-to-end trigger. The researcher only verified first-hand the code above: the guard's two call sites, the name-only validation in
update(), and the unguardedabspath→os.makedirs()flow at 3.1.61 ==main.
Suggested fix
Apply the guard the project already has, wherever the path is consumed:
# in update(), before deriving abspath (and in any other consumer of self.path):
checkout_rel = self._to_relative_path(self.repo, self.path) # raises if it escapes the working tree
Better still, validate at the boundary: reject a .gitmodules entry whose path is absolute or contains a .. component when the section is first read in _set_cache_()/iter_items(), so no consumer can be added later without the check. A regression test with path = ../escaped alongside the existing name test would pin both fields.
Prior art checked
GHSA-hmq2-w58f-27jc (this is a residual of its fix, in the sibling field, not a re-report) plus the repository's 30 published advisories — none mentions the path field or _to_relative_path. Searched issues and PRs for _to_relative_path, gitmodules path and submodule traversal: no report of this.
Credit
kta1kri.
Appendix — EVIDENCE_gitpython_path_unguarded_20260901.txt (inlined; advisories accept no attachments)
=== EVIDENCE: GitPython — the .gitmodules 'path' field reaches os.makedirs()/clone unguarded ===
Mon Aug 31 18:45:22 UTC 2026
--- artifact: tag 3.1.61 (latest release); git diff 3.1.61 origin/main -- git/objects/submodule/ is empty ---
--- the containment guard GitPython owns, and its only two call sites ---
33: _to_relative_path,
400: def _to_relative_path(cls, parent_repo: "Repo", path: PathLike) -> PathLike:
407: path = _to_relative_path(parent_repo.working_tree_dir, path)
542: path = cls._to_relative_path(repo, path)
1041: module_checkout_path = self._to_relative_path(self.repo, module_path)
--- the parent fix (_validated_name) call sites: it validates the NAME ---
309: def _validated_name(cls, name: str) -> str:
321: name = cls._validated_name(name)
541: cls._validated_name(name)
788: self._validated_name(self.name)
1040: self._validated_name(self.name)
1181: self._validated_name(self.name)
1439: self._validated_name(self.name)
1440: self._validated_name(new_name)
1489: self._validated_name(self.name)
--- update(): name validated, path not; abspath -> os.makedirs ---
try:
self._validated_name(self.name)
# ENSURE REPO IS PRESENT AND UP-TO-DATE
# END early abort if init is not allowed
checkout_module_abspath = self.abspath
module_abspath = self._module_abspath(self.repo, self.path, self.name)
# ``git submodule deinit`` leaves the repository in
# ``.git/modules`` and empties the checkout. Reconnect that retained
# repository instead of trying to clone over it.
if not dry_run and osp.isdir(module_abspath):
try:
git.Repo(module_abspath)
except InvalidGitRepositoryError:
pass
else:
if osp.lexists(checkout_module_abspath) and (
osp.islink(checkout_module_abspath)
or not osp.isdir(checkout_module_abspath)
or os.listdir(checkout_module_abspath)
):
raise OSError(
"Module directory at %r does already exist and is non-empty" % checkout_module_abspath
)
os.makedirs(checkout_module_abspath, exist_ok=True)
self._write_git_file_and_module_config(checkout_module_abspath, module_abspath)
mrepo = git.Repo(checkout_module_abspath)
--- where self.path comes from (raw .gitmodules value) ---
def _set_cache_(self, attr: str) -> None:
if attr in ("path", "_url", "_branch_path"):
reader: SectionConstraint = self.config_reader()
# Default submodule values.
try:
self.path = reader.get("path")
except cp.NoSectionError as e:
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.1.61"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "GitPython"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.62"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-30T23:47:12Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "**Affected:** `GitPython` **3.1.61** (latest release) and `main` \u2014 `git/objects/submodule/base.py`. `git diff 3.1.61 origin/main -- git/objects/submodule/` is empty, so both are identical here.\n\n---\n\n## The gap\n\nThe fix for `GHSA-hmq2-w58f-27jc` added `Submodule._validated_name()` and wired it into `update()` and five siblings, closing the `.gitmodules` **name** \u2192 `.git/modules/\u003cname\u003e` traversal. The other attacker-controlled `.gitmodules` field, **`path`**, is read raw:\n\n```python\n# git/objects/submodule/base.py:172-177\ndef _set_cache_(self, attr):\n if attr in (\"path\", \"_url\", \"_branch_path\"):\n reader = self.config_reader()\n self.path = reader.get(\"path\") # raw .gitmodules value\n```\n\nand GitPython\u0027s own containment guard is applied in only two of the places that consume it:\n\n```\n400: def _to_relative_path(cls, parent_repo, path) # the guard (abspath + commonpath containment)\n542: path = cls._to_relative_path(repo, path) # add() \u2014 guarded\n1041: module_checkout_path = self._to_relative_path(self.repo, module_path) # move() \u2014 guarded\n```\n\n`update()` validates only the name and then uses the path-derived absolute location directly:\n\n```\n788: self._validated_name(self.name) # NAME only\n801: checkout_module_abspath = self.abspath # derived from self.path \u2014 unguarded\n821: os.makedirs(checkout_module_abspath, exist_ok=True)\n```\n\nSo `path = ../../../tmp/escaped` in an attacker-authored `.gitmodules` selects the directory that gets created and, on the clone path, populated from the submodule URL. The same absolute location is what `force_remove` hands to `shutil.rmtree`.\n\nThe asymmetry is the argument: this is not a missing concept \u2014 the project wrote `_to_relative_path()` precisely for this, and `add()`/`move()` use it. `update()` does not.\n\n## Honest limits (please read before rating)\n\n- **The most common flow is not affected.** `Repo.clone_from(...)` \u2192 `repo.submodules` \u2192 `sm.update(init=True)` re-derives `path` from a canonical tree lookup, and real git refuses to check out a tree containing a `..` component, so an evil `.gitmodules` never lands in the working tree in the first place. A reachable trigger therefore requires the victim\u0027s code to name a **non-HEAD commit** (a historical-commit API such as `submodule_update(previous_commit=...)`).\n- **The researcher did not build that end-to-end trigger.** The researcher only verified first-hand the code above: the guard\u0027s two call sites, the name-only validation in `update()`, and the unguarded `abspath` \u2192 `os.makedirs()` flow at 3.1.61 == `main`.\n\n## Suggested fix\n\nApply the guard the project already has, wherever the path is consumed:\n\n```python\n# in update(), before deriving abspath (and in any other consumer of self.path):\ncheckout_rel = self._to_relative_path(self.repo, self.path) # raises if it escapes the working tree\n```\n\nBetter still, validate at the boundary: reject a `.gitmodules` entry whose `path` is absolute or contains a `..` component when the section is first read in `_set_cache_()`/`iter_items()`, so no consumer can be added later without the check. A regression test with `path = ../escaped` alongside the existing `name` test would pin both fields.\n\n## Prior art checked\n\n`GHSA-hmq2-w58f-27jc` (this is a residual of its fix, in the sibling field, not a re-report) plus the repository\u0027s 30 published advisories \u2014 none mentions the `path` field or `_to_relative_path`. Searched issues and PRs for `_to_relative_path`, `gitmodules path` and `submodule traversal`: no report of this.\n\n## Credit\n\n**kta1kri**.\n\n\n---\n\n## Appendix \u2014 `EVIDENCE_gitpython_path_unguarded_20260901.txt` (inlined; advisories accept no attachments)\n\n```text\n=== EVIDENCE: GitPython \u2014 the .gitmodules \u0027path\u0027 field reaches os.makedirs()/clone unguarded ===\nMon Aug 31 18:45:22 UTC 2026\n\n--- artifact: tag 3.1.61 (latest release); git diff 3.1.61 origin/main -- git/objects/submodule/ is empty ---\n\n--- the containment guard GitPython owns, and its only two call sites ---\n33: _to_relative_path,\n400: def _to_relative_path(cls, parent_repo: \"Repo\", path: PathLike) -\u003e PathLike:\n407: path = _to_relative_path(parent_repo.working_tree_dir, path)\n542: path = cls._to_relative_path(repo, path)\n1041: module_checkout_path = self._to_relative_path(self.repo, module_path)\n\n--- the parent fix (_validated_name) call sites: it validates the NAME ---\n309: def _validated_name(cls, name: str) -\u003e str:\n321: name = cls._validated_name(name)\n541: cls._validated_name(name)\n788: self._validated_name(self.name)\n1040: self._validated_name(self.name)\n1181: self._validated_name(self.name)\n1439: self._validated_name(self.name)\n1440: self._validated_name(new_name)\n1489: self._validated_name(self.name)\n\n--- update(): name validated, path not; abspath -\u003e os.makedirs ---\n\n try:\n self._validated_name(self.name)\n\n # ENSURE REPO IS PRESENT AND UP-TO-DATE\n # END early abort if init is not allowed\n\n checkout_module_abspath = self.abspath\n module_abspath = self._module_abspath(self.repo, self.path, self.name)\n\n # ``git submodule deinit`` leaves the repository in\n # ``.git/modules`` and empties the checkout. Reconnect that retained\n # repository instead of trying to clone over it.\n if not dry_run and osp.isdir(module_abspath):\n try:\n git.Repo(module_abspath)\n except InvalidGitRepositoryError:\n pass\n else:\n if osp.lexists(checkout_module_abspath) and (\n osp.islink(checkout_module_abspath)\n or not osp.isdir(checkout_module_abspath)\n or os.listdir(checkout_module_abspath)\n ):\n raise OSError(\n \"Module directory at %r does already exist and is non-empty\" % checkout_module_abspath\n )\n os.makedirs(checkout_module_abspath, exist_ok=True)\n self._write_git_file_and_module_config(checkout_module_abspath, module_abspath)\n mrepo = git.Repo(checkout_module_abspath)\n\n--- where self.path comes from (raw .gitmodules value) ---\n def _set_cache_(self, attr: str) -\u003e None:\n if attr in (\"path\", \"_url\", \"_branch_path\"):\n reader: SectionConstraint = self.config_reader()\n # Default submodule values.\n try:\n self.path = reader.get(\"path\")\n except cp.NoSectionError as e:\n```",
"id": "GHSA-59cr-6r3x-644w",
"modified": "2026-09-30T23:47:12Z",
"published": "2026-09-30T23:47:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/security/advisories/GHSA-59cr-6r3x-644w"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/pull/2225"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/commit/1ed0ebc2f2e74d979cdc367a4864a7731fdcc093"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gitpython-developers/GitPython/releases/tag/3.1.62"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "GitPython submodule update path traversal can write outside the repository"
}
GHSA-59QG-HPF9-JM3R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-09-04 03:30 – Updated: 2024-02-29 03:32A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in SourceCodester Inventory Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file index.php. The manipulation of the argument page leads to file inclusion. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. VDB-238638 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-4749"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-09-04T01:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in SourceCodester Inventory Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file index.php. The manipulation of the argument page leads to file inclusion. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. VDB-238638 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-59qg-hpf9-jm3r",
"modified": "2024-02-29T03:32:16Z",
"published": "2023-09-04T03:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-4749"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://skypoc.wordpress.com/2023/09/03/%e3%80%90code-audit%e3%80%91open-source-ample-inventory-management-system-v1-0-by-mayuri_k-has-a-file-inclusion-vulnerability"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.238638"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.238638"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5C24-6XXH-4R78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 19:24 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:30A vulnerability has been identified in syngo Dynamics (All versions < VA40G HF01). syngo Dynamics application server hosts a web service using an operation with improper write access control that could allow to write data in any folder accessible to the account assigned to the website’s application pool.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-42734"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-610",
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-17T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in syngo Dynamics (All versions \u003c VA40G HF01). syngo Dynamics application server hosts a web service using an operation with improper write access control that could allow to write data in any folder accessible to the account assigned to the website\u2019s application pool.",
"id": "GHSA-5c24-6xxh-4r78",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:30:22Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T19:24:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-42734"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/en-us/support-documentation/cybersecurity/shsa-741697"
}
],
"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-5CHH-WV34-P78R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-04 15:30 – Updated: 2025-01-04 15:30A vulnerability was found in Campcodes School Faculty Scheduling System 1.0 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /admin/index.php. The manipulation of the argument page leads to file inclusion. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-0211"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-04T15:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in Campcodes School Faculty Scheduling System 1.0 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /admin/index.php. The manipulation of the argument page leads to file inclusion. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.",
"id": "GHSA-5chh-wv34-p78r",
"modified": "2025-01-04T15:30:45Z",
"published": "2025-01-04T15:30:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0211"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/shaturo1337/POCs/blob/main/LFI%20in%20School%20Faculty%20Scheduling%20System.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.290156"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.290156"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.474115"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.campcodes.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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-5F38-J7H2-22Q2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-12 18:31 – Updated: 2026-08-12 18:31In WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2026.0.2, an unauthenticated remote attacker with network access to the affected service can execute arbitrary code in the context of the IIS application service account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-65941"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-12T16:17:14Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In WhatsUp Gold versions released before 2026.0.2,\u00a0an unauthenticated remote attacker with network access to the affected service can execute arbitrary code in the context of the IIS application service account.",
"id": "GHSA-5f38-j7h2-22q2",
"modified": "2026-08-12T18:31:18Z",
"published": "2026-08-12T18:31:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-65941"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://community.progress.com/s/article/WhatsUp-Gold-Security-Bulletin-August-2026"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.progress.com/bundle/whatsupgold-release-notes-26-0/page/WhatsUp-Gold-2026.0-Release-Notes.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.progress.com/network-monitoring"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-5F75-CGX5-CHC6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-08 09:31 – Updated: 2025-04-08 09:31The ZoomSounds - WordPress Wave Audio Player with Playlist plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read in all versions up to, and including, 6.91 via the 'dzsap_download' action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to read the contents of arbitrary files on the server, which can contain sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-3431"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-73"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-08T08:15:18Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The ZoomSounds - WordPress Wave Audio Player with Playlist plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read in all versions up to, and including, 6.91 via the \u0027dzsap_download\u0027 action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to read the contents of arbitrary files on the server, which can contain sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-5f75-cgx5-chc6",
"modified": "2025-04-08T09:31:11Z",
"published": "2025-04-08T09:31:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-3431"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://codecanyon.net/item/zoomsounds-wordpress-wave-audio-player-with-playlist/6181433"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a78998da-1cb1-4991-95a8-a551bde04064?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"
}
]
}
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.