Skip to content

GHSA-g9cj-cfpp-4g2x CVE-2024-1561 PYSEC-2026-1415

gradio vulnerable to Path Traversal

High PyPI
Severity
7.5 / 10
High · CVSS 3.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
9.31%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 95.38% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-29 Path Traversal: '\..\filename'
Fix
4.13.0
Upgrade gradio to this version or later

Description

An issue was discovered in gradio-app/gradio, where the /component_server endpoint improperly allows the invocation of any method on a Component class with attacker-controlled arguments. Specifically, by exploiting the move_resource_to_block_cache() method of the Block class, an attacker can copy any file on the filesystem to a temporary directory and subsequently retrieve it. This vulnerability enables unauthorized local file read access, posing a significant risk especially when the application is exposed to the internet via launch(share=True), thereby allowing remote attackers to read files on the host machine. Furthermore, gradio apps hosted on huggingface.co are also affected, potentially leading to the exposure of sensitive information such as API keys and credentials stored in environment variables.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
gradio
< 4.13.0
4.13.0

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.

gradio PyPI → 4.13.0

pip
pip install --upgrade "gradio>=4.13.0"
poetry
poetry add "gradio>=4.13.0"
uv
uv add "gradio>=4.13.0"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.0 7.5

CVSS:3.0/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-29: Path Traversal: '\..\filename'

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\..\filename' (leading backslash dot dot) sequences 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.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-j36p-7w88-g82j
Gradio FileExplorer preprocess path traversal allows files outside root_dir to reach callbacks
High Also affects gradio
GHSA-6655-8ph2-63j3
Gradio: Audio cache key ignores metadata when saving numpy audio outputs
Low Also affects gradio
GHSA-7hp7-4p35-3cx2
Gradio contains a cookie injection vulnerability
Medium Also affects gradio
GHSA-jmh7-g254-2cq9
Gradio has SSRF via Malicious `proxy_url` Injection in `gr.load()` Config Processing
High Also affects gradio
GHSA-pfjf-5gxr-995x
Gradio has an Open Redirect in its OAuth Flow
Medium Also affects gradio
GHSA-39mp-8hj3-5c49
Gradio is Vulnerable to Absolute Path Traversal on Windows with Python 3.13+
High Also affects gradio
GHSA-h3h8-3v2v-rg7m
Gradio: Mocked OAuth Login Exposes Server Credentials and Uses Hardcoded Session Secret
Medium Also affects gradio
GHSA-8jw3-6x8j-v96g
Gradio Allows Unauthorized File Copy via Path Manipulation
High Also affects gradio
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