GHSA-47f6-5p7h-5f3h CVE-2024-6854 PYSEC-2026-1436
H2O Vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite via File Export
High
MavenPyPI
- Severity
- 7.1 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.78%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 55.80% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-36 Absolute Path Traversal
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
In h2oai/h2o-3 version 3.46.0, the endpoint for exporting models does not restrict the export location, allowing an attacker to export a model to any file in the server's file structure, thereby overwriting it. This vulnerability can be exploited to overwrite any file on the target server with a trained model file, although the content of the overwrite is not controllable by the attacker.
Affected versions
Maven
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| ai.h2o:h2o-core | >= 3.32.1.1, <= 3.46.0 |
No fix yet |
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| h2o | >= 3.32.1.1, <= 3.46.0 |
No fix yet |
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 3.0 7.1
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
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
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-qmcv-hh7c-3m56 H2O-3 is Vulnerable to Code Injection | Critical | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-wj3h-wx8g-x699 H2O has an External Control of File Name or Path vulnerability | Critical | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-5w3j-gwgh-4rfv H2O affected by a deserialization vulnerability | Critical | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-g48v-3p35-88jr H2O Vulnerable to Arbitrary File Overwrite | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-5c8j-g96x-cj78 H2O Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via `HEAD` Request | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-p2vc-m5fv-9w9m H2O Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via `/3/ImportFiles` Endpoint | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-6w62-3jvj-mfj6 H2O Vulnerable to Denial of Service (DoS) via Large GZIP Parsing | High | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
| GHSA-m37h-8r48-2cxj H2O Vulnerable to Execution of Arbitrary Files | Medium | Also affects ai.h2o:h2o-core |
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