Skip to content

GHSA-4xgf-cpjx-pc3j CVE-2026-58203

pydantic-settings: NestedSecretsSettingsSource follows symlinks outside secrets_dir, enabling local file read and bypassing secrets_dir_max_size

Medium PyPI
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.18%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 8.08% 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')
CWE-59 Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
CWE-400 Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
Fix
2.14.2
Upgrade pydantic-settings to this version or later

Description

Summary

NestedSecretsSettingsSource reads secret values from files in a configured secrets_dir. When secrets_nested_subdir=True, a directory entry inside secrets_dir that is a symbolic link pointing outside secrets_dir is followed, so files outside the configured directory are read into settings values. The same code path bypasses the documented secrets_dir_max_size protection. An attacker or lower-privileged component able to influence entries in the configured secrets directory (for example, a writable or shared secrets mount) can turn this into an unintended local file read into settings and can defeat the advertised loading-size cap. This report does not claim network reachability by itself.

Details

NestedSecretsSettingsSource performed two passes over secrets_dir using two different, inconsistent directory-traversal implementations:

  • The size check in validate_secrets_path() used Path.glob('**/*'), which does not descend into a symbolically-linked directory.
  • The loader in load_secrets() used glob.iglob(f'{path}/**/*', recursive=True) followed by read_text(), which does follow symlinked directories and reads through the link target.

Because the two passes disagreed on symlinks, a symlinked directory inside secrets_dir whose target lives elsewhere was invisible to the size accounting (counted as 0 bytes) while still being fully read by the loader. This produces two distinct problems:

  1. Out-of-tree read (CWE-22 / CWE-59). A symlinked directory (or file) inside secrets_dir that resolves outside it is followed, and the external file's contents are loaded into the corresponding settings field.
  2. secrets_dir_max_size bypass (CWE-400). The size check never sees the out-of-tree content, so the documented size cap is neither respected nor able to reject the oversized external file. A related amplification exists for cyclic in-tree symlinks, which glob.iglob(recursive=True) re-traverses, inflating the size accounting and the number of loaded secrets.

Reproduction

In a clean Linux container, with a secrets_dir containing a symlink secrets/db -> /path/outside and an outside/passwd file of 512 bytes, while secrets_dir_max_size=100:

from pydantic import BaseModel
from pydantic_settings import (
    BaseSettings,
    SettingsConfigDict,
    NestedSecretsSettingsSource,
)


class Db(BaseModel):
    passwd: str | None = None


class Settings(BaseSettings):
    model_config = SettingsConfigDict(
        secrets_dir='secrets',
        secrets_nested_subdir=True,
        secrets_dir_max_size=100,  # outside/passwd is 512 bytes
    )
    db: Db = Db()

    @classmethod
    def settings_customise_sources(
        cls, settings_cls, init_settings, env_settings, dotenv_settings, file_secret_settings
    ):
        return (NestedSecretsSettingsSource(file_secret_settings),)

On affected versions, Settings().db.passwd is populated with the 512-byte out-of-tree file and no SettingsError is raised, even though the file exceeds secrets_dir_max_size.

Impact

Applications that opt into NestedSecretsSettingsSource with secrets_nested_subdir=True and load secrets from a directory whose entries can be influenced by an attacker or a lower-privileged component (for example, a writable or shared secrets mount, or a secrets directory partially populated from untrusted input) are affected. The impact is:

  • Confidentiality: files outside the configured secrets_dir can be read into settings values (local file read).
  • Integrity / availability of the safeguard: the advertised secrets_dir_max_size cap can be bypassed, and cyclic symlinks can inflate resource usage during loading.

The vulnerability requires the ability to place a symbolic link inside the configured secrets directory; it is not remotely reachable on its own. Applications that do not use NestedSecretsSettingsSource, or that point secrets_dir at a directory fully under the application's control, are not affected.

Mitigation

Upgrade to pydantic-settings 2.14.2, which:

  • walks the secrets directory explicitly and only descends into directories whose resolved path stays within secrets_dir, so symlinked directories pointing outside are never followed;
  • uses a single, cycle-safe iterator for both the size check and the loader, so the size accounting and the loaded set are always consistent and each real directory is visited at most once;
  • skips any file whose resolved path escapes secrets_dir, as defense in depth.

If upgrading is not immediately possible, ensure the configured secrets_dir is fully owned and controlled by the application (no writable or attacker-influenced entries), or avoid secrets_nested_subdir=True.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pydantic-settings
>= 2.12.0, < 2.14.2
2.14.2
pydantic-settings
>= 2.12.0, < 2.14.2
2.14.2

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.

pydantic-settings PyPI → 2.14.2

pip
pip install --upgrade "pydantic-settings>=2.14.2"
poetry
poetry add "pydantic-settings>=2.14.2"
uv
uv add "pydantic-settings>=2.14.2"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
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.

CWE-59: Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')

The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to provide protected areas that can be trusted.

CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place. The login application should be protected against DoS attacks as much as possible. Limiting the database access, perhaps by caching result sets, can help minimize the resources expended. To further limit the potential for a DoS attack, consider tracking the rate of requests received from users and blocking requests that exceed a defined rate threshold.
  • Architecture and Design: Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed. The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question. The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute -- and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
  • Implementation: Ensure that all failures in resource allocation place the system into a safe posture.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-hjqx-j4rw-g7xv
zip: Arbitrary file write outside the extraction directory, because ZipArchive::extract validates symlink targets lexically.
High Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-9jrw-8xf7-xqhq
Keycloak vulnerable to information disclosure through arbitrary filesystem path probing
Medium Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-4vjg-vx72-qq4g
systeminformation has path traversal in Linux networkStats() that allows symlink-based file disclosure outside /sys/class/net
Low Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-m65p-9j7q-6w33
MLflow vulnerable to arbitrary file read on unauthenticated servers via prompt model version source
High Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-g5ff-637f-6q2m
LiteLLM: internal_user_viewer arbitrary local file read via `vertex_ai_credentials`
High Same weakness, CWE-22
CVE-2026-113672
Argo CD is a declarative, GitOps continuous delivery tool for Kubernetes.
Critical Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-xp26-3454-mjgp
Vitest: Windows backslash traversal bypasses the @vitest/mocker redirect allowlist fix
Medium Same weakness, CWE-22
GHSA-vfpm-58rq-9qcg
Vite: First 4 bytes of files outside of `server.fs` setting is exposed by `?vite-wasm-instance`
Medium Same weakness, CWE-22

Credits: Faze-up

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