Skip to content

GHSA-364q-w7vh-vhpc CVE-2026-31817 GO-2026-4670

OliveTin's unsafe parsing of UniqueTrackingId can be used to write files

High Go
Severity
8.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.74%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 54.66% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
Fix
0.0.0-20260309102040-b03af0e2eca3
Upgrade github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin to this version or later

Description

When the saveLogs feature is enabled, OliveTin persists execution log entries to disk. The filename used for these log files is constructed in part from the user-supplied UniqueTrackingId field in the StartAction API request. This value is not validated or sanitized before being used in a file path, allowing an attacker to use directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../) to write files to arbitrary locations on the filesystem.

Affected Code

Entry point — service/internal/api/api.go (line 130):

The UniqueTrackingId from the API request is passed directly to the executor without validation:

execReq := executor.ExecutionRequest{
    Binding:    pair,
    TrackingID: req.Msg.UniqueTrackingId, // user-controlled, no validation
    // ...
}

Tracking ID accepted as-is — service/internal/executor/executor.go (lines 508–512):

The tracking ID is only replaced with a UUID if it is empty or a duplicate. Any other string, including one containing path separators, is accepted:

_, isDuplicate := e.GetLog(req.TrackingID)

if isDuplicate || req.TrackingID == "" {
    req.TrackingID = uuid.NewString()
}

Filename construction — service/internal/executor/executor.go (line 1042):

The tracking ID is interpolated directly into the log filename:

filename := fmt.Sprintf("%v.%v.%v",
    req.logEntry.ActionTitle,
    req.logEntry.DatetimeStarted.Unix(),
    req.logEntry.ExecutionTrackingID,
)

File write — service/internal/executor/executor.go (lines 1068–1069 and 1082–1083):

The filename is joined to the configured log directory using path.Join, which calls path.Clean internally. path.Clean resolves .. path segments, causing the final file path to escape the intended directory:

// Results file (.yaml)
filepath := path.Join(dir, filename+".yaml")
err = os.WriteFile(filepath, data, 0600)

// Output file (.log)
filepath := path.Join(dir, filename+".log")
err := os.WriteFile(filepath, []byte(data), 0600)

Proof of Concept

An attacker sends the following StartAction request (Connect RPC or REST):

{
  "bindingId": "<any-executable-action-id>",
  "uniqueTrackingId": "../../../tmp/pwned"
}

Assuming the action title is Ping the Internet and the timestamp is 1741320000, the constructed filename becomes:

Ping the Internet.1741320000.../../../tmp/pwned

When path.Join processes this with a configured results directory like /var/olivetin/logs:

path.Join("/var/olivetin/logs", "Ping the Internet.1741320000.../../../tmp/pwned.yaml")

path.Clean resolves the traversal:

  1. Path segments: ["var", "olivetin", "logs", "Ping the Internet.1741320000...", "..", "..", "..", "tmp", "pwned.yaml"]
  2. The .. segments traverse upward past the log directory.
  3. Final resolved path: /tmp/pwned.yaml

Two files are written:

  • .yaml file — contains YAML-serialized InternalLogEntry (action title, icon, timestamps, exit code, output, tags, username, tracking ID)
  • .log file — contains the raw command output (potentially attacker-influenced if the action echoes its arguments)

Impact

  • Arbitrary file write to any path writable by the OliveTin process.
  • OliveTin frequently runs as root inside Docker containers, so the writable scope is often the entire filesystem.
  • An attacker could:
    • Overwrite OliveTin's own sessions.yaml to inject authenticated sessions.
    • Write to entity file directories to inject malicious entity data.
    • Write to system cron directories or other locations to achieve remote code execution.
    • Cause denial of service by overwriting critical system files.

Suggested Fix

Validate the UniqueTrackingId to ensure it only contains safe characters before use. A strict UUID format check is the simplest approach:

import "regexp"

var validTrackingID = regexp.MustCompile(`^[a-fA-F0-9\-]+$`)

// In ExecRequest, before accepting the user-supplied ID:
if req.TrackingID == "" || !validTrackingID.MatchString(req.TrackingID) {
    req.TrackingID = uuid.NewString()
}

Alternatively, sanitize the filename in stepSaveLog by stripping or rejecting path separators and .. sequences.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
< 0.0.0-20260309102040-b03af0e2eca3
0.0.0-20260309102040-b03af0e2eca3

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin Go → 0.0.0-20260309102040-b03af0e2eca3

go
go get github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin@v0.0.0-20260309102040-b03af0e2eca3 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.5

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:L

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

Weakness

CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

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.

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
  • Architecture and Design: 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.
  • 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. 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
  • Architecture and Design: 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].
  • 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].
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: 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.
  • Architecture and Design: 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.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: 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.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: 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.
  • Implementation: 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.
  • Operation, Implementation: 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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-jm28-2wcr-qf3h
OliveTin: StartActionAndWait Endpoints Bypass `logs` Permission and Return Action Output
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xc5w-4v5w-7x65
OliveTin OS Command Injection via Custom regex: Argument Type Bypassing Shell Safety Check
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xpxj-f2fm-rqch
OliveTin: Unauthenticated DoS via OAuth2 State Memory Exhaustion (Unbounded Map Growth)
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-prj9-97mp-mwh2
OliveTin has Unvalidated `ot_`-prefixed Arguments that Bypass Input Filtering
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-f637-w7p2-m7fx
OliveTin: ValidateArgumentType API Endpoint's Missing Authentication Allows Action and Argument Enumeration
Low Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-7fq5-7wr8-rjwj
OliveTin has a Concurrent Template Parsing Race Condition which Leads to Cross-Request Command Contamination
High Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-xx6g-43w2-9g6g
OliveTin's email argument makes compliance harder, enables log injection
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
GHSA-228v-wc5r-j8m7
OliveTin Vulnerable to Unauthorized Action Output Disclosure via EventStream
Medium Also affects github.com/OliveTin/OliveTin
Is this in your code?

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