Skip to content

GHSA-j456-xh4h-cpf2 CVE-2026-109956

NLTK: WekaClassifier passes an unvalidated caller-controlled model path to the weka JVM, bypassing nltk.pathsec containment

High PyPI
Severity
8.3 / 10
High · CVSS 4.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.32%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 24.77% 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-73 External Control of File Name or Path
Fix
3.10.4
Upgrade nltk to this version or later

Description

Summary

WekaClassifier in NLTK passes a caller-controlled model file path to the weka Java VM without any nltk.pathsec validation. WekaClassifier.train puts the caller's model_filename verbatim into the weka argv ["-d", model_filename, ...] (weka writes the trained model there), and WekaClassifier._classify_many puts self._model into ["-l", self._model, ...] (weka reads it). Under nltk.pathsec.ENFORCE=True (the default on current HEAD), NLTK's stated invariant — established by advisory CVE-2026-81726 / GHSA-8mgp-746c-j5xp — is that caller-controlled model-artifact paths must be bounded to the allowed NLTK data roots before any native tool opens them. WekaClassifier is the one java()-based tool wrapper that skips this entirely, giving an untrusted workflow arbitrary-location file write (-d) and an arbitrary file read/parse oracle (-l), defeating pathsec containment.

This is a standalone, unfixed variant of the same class as CVE-2026-81726, on a code path the CVE-2026-81726 fix never touched. That advisory enumerates 6 functions (TransitionParser.train, TransitionParser.parse, AveragedPerceptron.save, AveragedPerceptron.load, PerceptronTagger.save_to_json, save_maxent_params) — WekaClassifier is not among them, and weka.py contains no validate_tool_path/validate_model_resource at all.

Root Cause

WekaClassifier.train(cls, model_filename, ...) builds cmd = [javaclass, "-d", model_filename, "-t", train_filename] (nltk/classify/weka.py:256) and WekaClassifier._classify_many builds [..., "-l", self._model, "-T", <staged>, ...] (weka.py:131-133); self._model is stored unvalidated in __init__ (weka.py:108-110). Only the internally-generated train.arff/test.arff are staged via make_staging_dir; the model path is passed as-is. nltk.internals.java() (internals.py:388-431) validates the classpath (_verify_jar_sandbox), the JVM launcher options (_validate_java_options, the CVE-2026-12841 fix), the main-class token cmd[0], and rejects @argfile tokens in any position — but it explicitly permits program arguments starting with - and never inspects the interior of a program-arg path value. So -d <path> / -l <path> flow unchecked to subprocess.Popen(final_cmd, shell=False) and the weka JVM performs an unbounded native open/write on the caller-chosen path.

Sibling wrappers prove the intended pattern: CRFTagger.train/set_model_file call validate_tool_path (crf.py:134,300); MaltParser.generate_malt_command validates -i/-o via validate_tool_path (malt.py:340,344), its model via validate_model_resource (malt.py:326) and working_dir via validate_path (malt.py:206). weka.py already uses pathsec elsewhere (validate_path for WEKAHOME, pathsec_open for ARFF writes) but never for the model path.

Impact

Under pathsec.ENFORCE=True (default on HEAD), an untrusted workflow that chooses the weka model save/load path obtains:

  • Arbitrary-location file write via -d — overwrite or create a file at an attacker-chosen absolute or ..-traversal path outside the allowed NLTK data roots (content constrained to weka's serialized-model format; the target choice is the integrity impact). This corrupts/clobbers arbitrary chosen files.
  • Arbitrary file read/parse oracle via -l — weka loads an out-of-root path as a model, yielding an existence/parse differential (file content is not echoed back → confidentiality impact is limited).

This defeats the pathsec containment advisory CVE-2026-81726 promises, at the same privilege level / threat model that advisory was accepted under.

Proof of Concept

import nltk.pathsec as ps; ps.ENFORCE = True
from nltk.classify.weka import WekaClassifier
# write-side: model written OUTSIDE any allowed NLTK data root (refused for CRFTagger, allowed here)
WekaClassifier.train("/tmp/outside_sandbox/evil.model",
                     [({"a": 1}, "pos"), ({"a": 0}, "neg")])
# read-side: -l opens an arbitrary path
clf = WekaClassifier(fmt, "/home/victim/secret.model")
clf.classify_many([{"a": 1}])

The argv construction — the vulnerable step — is confirmed without weka installed (see Bypass Evidence); a configured weka.jar is needed only to observe the JVM's actual file I/O.

Attack Chain

  1. Entry. Action: an app running with pathsec.ENFORCE=True lets an untrusted workflow choose the weka model path and calls WekaClassifier.train("../../../home/victim/x", featuresets) (write) or WekaClassifier(fmt, "/home/victim/secret.model").classify_many(...) (read). Guard: none — plain classmethod/constructor parameter (weka.py:230,108-110). Bypass proof: grep shows weka.py uses no validate_tool_path/validate_model_resource/validate_tool_dir (NONE).
  2. Command build. Action: the path is placed into cmd = [javaclass, "-d", model_filename, "-t", train_filename] (weka.py:256) / ["-l", self._model, ...]. Guard: only the internally-generated train.arff is staged via make_staging_dir; the model path is passed as-is. Bypass proof: runtime capture yielded ['weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes', '-d', '/tmp/outside_sandbox_weka.model', '-t', '<staged>/train.arff'] — the raw out-of-root path is cmd[2].
  3. java() sink. Action: java(cmd, classpath=_weka_classpath, ...) → subprocess.Popen(final_cmd) (internals.py:431). Guard: java() validates classpath, JVM options, cmd[0], and rejects @argfile tokens. Bypass proof: none of these inspect the -d/-l program-arg value; internals.py explicitly documents that program args after the main class may start with -, and the path is neither cmd[0] nor an @-token, so every java() gate passes. Negative control: the same path through validate_tool_path(..., for_write=True, must_exist=False) raises PermissionError.
  4. Impact. Action: the weka JVM opens the path outside the allowed roots → arbitrary-location write (-d) / parse-existence oracle (-l). Guard: pathsec is never consulted (no validate_tool_path, no pathsec_open). Bypass proof: the directly-analogous sibling CRFTagger.train calls validate_tool_path(model_file, must_exist=False) (crf.py:300); weka does not, and commit ee6d6138 hardened weka's other sinks (scratch files, WEKAHOME jar) while leaving the model path unvalidated.

Bypass Evidence

  • Negative control (guard is real): validate_tool_path("/tmp/outside_sandbox_weka.model", for_write=True, must_exist=False) → PermissionError; validate_tool_path("../../../home/victim/.ssh/authorized_keys", ...) → PermissionError.
  • Sink reached unvalidated (guard absent): captured write-side argv ['weka.classifiers.bayes.NaiveBayes', '-d', '/tmp/outside_sandbox_weka.model', '-t', '<staged>/train.arff'] and read-side [..., '-l', '/home/victim/secret.model', '-T', '<staged>/test.arff', '-p', '0'].
  • Version: git show v3.10.3:nltk/classify/weka.py contains both the -d model-path build (line 235) and the -l read, and NO validate_tool_path.

Affected Versions

<= 3.10.3 (present on the latest release tag v3.10.3 and on HEAD c06cd264). No published fix has ever targeted the weka -d/-l model path; commits after v3.10.3 (ee6d6138, 92aeada6, a9752559) touched weka.py for other sinks but did not add model-path validation.

Suggested Fix

Before building the -d/-l/-T command, validate the model path with pathsec, mirroring CRFTagger/MaltParser:

validate_tool_path(model_filename, context="WekaClassifier.train", for_write=True, must_exist=False)
validate_tool_path(self._model, context="WekaClassifier._classify_many")

Reported by zx (Jace) — GitHub: @manus-use

Fix status (2026-09-28)

Status: MERGED on develop (unreleased; v3.10.3 of 2026-08-12 predates the fix).

PR: #3863 "Bound the WekaClassifier model path to the pathsec data roots", merged 2026-09-06, merge commit bc2878725 on develop. Fix commit: 6a1760629.

Probe: nltk/test/unit/security_probes/ghsa_j456_xh4h_cpf2.py, added by PR #3905 "Add GHSA-j456 live probe; expand the GHSA-8mgp probe attack set" (commit a96715264, merged 2026-09-20, merge commit 84d987bf8); verdict on develop 2fa3f48fe: FIXED (WekaClassifier -l and -d refuse out-of-root model paths).

Release: none yet; no release tag contains 6a1760629.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
nltk
< 3.10.4
3.10.4

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 → 3.10.4

pip
pip install --upgrade "nltk>=3.10.4"
poetry
poetry add "nltk>=3.10.4"
uv
uv add "nltk>=3.10.4"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 4.0 8.3

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
Low
Integrity (vulnerable system)
High
Availability (vulnerable system)
Low
Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
None
Integrity (subsequent systems)
None
Availability (subsequent systems)
None
Exploit maturity
Not defined
Scope
X

CVSS 3.1 8.6

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

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
High
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-73: External Control of File Name or Path

The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, 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 provide this capability.
  • Architecture and Design, Operation: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
  • 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: 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: 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).
  • Installation, Operation: Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.
  • Operation, Implementation: If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your 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.
  • Testing: Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
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
GHSA-w3v8-gmh9-3wv7
NLTK: ReDoS in nltk.tgrep via unvalidated user-supplied regular expressions
Medium 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