CVE-2024-13160
Absolute path traversal in Ivanti EPM before the 2024 January-2025 Security Update and 2022 SU6 January-2025 Security Update allows a remote unauthenticated…
High
Known exploited
- Severity
- 7.5 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 90.98%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 99.81% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Mar 10, 2025
- Weakness
- CWE-36 Absolute Path Traversal
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM) Absolute Path Traversal Vulnerability (Ivanti Endpoint Manager (EPM)). Required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Mar 31, 2025.
Description
Absolute path traversal in Ivanti EPM before the 2024 January-2025 Security Update and 2022 SU6 January-2025 Security Update allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to leak sensitive information.
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-36: Absolute Path Traversal
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as "/abs/path" that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: 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 b
- Implementation: 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.
- Operation: 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].
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-rg75-q538-x34v Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-32175 – .NET Core Tampering Vulnerability | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
| GHSA-838g-gr43-qqg9 PyLoad vulnerable to Path Traversal via Package Folder Name in set_package_data | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
| GHSA-p998-jp59-783m AIOHTTP affected by UNC SSRF/NTLMv2 Credential Theft/Local File Read in static resource handler on Windows | High | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
| GHSA-h8wq-7xc4-p3qx NLTK has Arbitrary File Read via Absolute Path Input in nltk.util.filestring() | High | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
| GHSA-39mp-8hj3-5c49 Gradio is Vulnerable to Absolute Path Traversal on Windows with Python 3.13+ | High | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
| GHSA-qqhf-pm3j-96g7 MindsDB has improper sanitation of filepath that leads to information disclosure and DOS | Critical | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
| GHSA-47f6-5p7h-5f3h H2O Vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite via File Export | High | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
| CVE-2024-48248 NAKIVO Backup & Replication before 11.0.0.88174 allows absolute path traversal for reading files via getImageByPath to /c/router (this may lead to remote code… | High Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-36 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor