Skip to content

GHSA-c6f4-wj38-m3g3 CVE-2026-55474

Snipe-IT vulnerable to directory traversal in displaySig

Medium Packagist
Severity
0.0 / 10
Medium · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.48%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 41.70% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-23 Relative Path Traversal
Fix
8.5.0
Upgrade snipe/snipe-it to this version or later

Description

Impact

The displaySig action in ActionlogController serves signature image files from a private upload directory. The filename parameter from the HTTP route is concatenated directly into a filesystem path with no sanitization, allowing an authenticated attacker to traverse outside the intended directory and read arbitrary files accessible to the web server process.

Reported by https://github.com/securin-public

Affected versions

Packagist

PackageVulnerableFixed in
snipe/snipe-it
< 8.5.0
8.5.0

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.

snipe/snipe-it Packagist → 8.5.0

composer
composer require snipe/snipe-it:^8.5.0

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
None
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
High
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
None
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None

CVSS 3.1 6.5

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

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

Weakness

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-396x-xmvh-p563
Snipe-IT: Stored XSS via Inline XML Rendering in the Uploaded Files API
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-p9h3-gvpq-5539
Snipe-IT: Stored XSS via Custom Field name in asset-list column headers
High Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-hxcx-9h4f-42xx
Snipe-IT: 2FA bypass via the API token flow
High Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-c8qc-wf67-342w
Snipe-IT: Stored DOM XSS via table selected-count IDs
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-r9r3-g9fp-3q4q
Snipe-IT: Maintenance Record Disclosure via Missing Authorization on GET
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-3hgv-jr5j-cg9x
Snipe-IT: Chained Information Disclosure and IDOR Leads to Full EULA File Takeover
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-c6w2-j4wq-mvwg
Snipe-IT: Tenant Isolation Bypass in FMCS Floater Mode
High Also affects snipe/snipe-it
GHSA-35cr-9hqq-p2mg
Snipe-IT: Cross-company deletion of pending checkout acceptances via unscoped report endpoint
Medium Also affects snipe/snipe-it
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