GHSA-jfgp-674x-6q4p CVE-2024-39303 PYSEC-2026-2041
Weblate vulnerable to improper sanitization of project backups
Medium
PyPI
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.32%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 24.75% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
- Fix
5.6.2- Upgrade weblate to this version or later
Description
Impact
Weblate didn't correctly validate filenames when restoring project backup. It may be possible to gain unauthorized access to files on the server using a crafted ZIP file.
Patches
This issue has been addressed in Weblate 5.6.2 via https://github.com/WeblateOrg/weblate/commit/b6a7eace155fa0feaf01b4ac36165a9c5e63bfdd.
Workarounds
Do not allow project creation to untrusted users.
References
Thanks to Bryan Cahill for bringing this issue to our attention.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- Open a topic in discussions
- Email us at care@weblate.org
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| weblate | >= 4.14, < 5.6.2 |
5.6.2 |
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.
weblate PyPI → 5.6.2
- pip
pip install --upgrade "weblate>=5.6.2"- poetry
poetry add "weblate>=5.6.2"- uv
uv add "weblate>=5.6.2"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- Present
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- Low
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- Low
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 4.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
Weakness
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-2q2q-jr9g-v9rf Weblate has IDOR in GroupViewSet that allows authenticated project manager to gain unauthorized read access to any private project | High | Also affects weblate |
| GHSA-2p9g-x3cv-5hh4 Private Weblate projects vulnerable to observable object existence disclosure via globally scoped object lookups | Medium | Also affects weblate |
| GHSA-vmfc-9982-2m45 Weblate SSRF: outbound URL guard misses some private ranges | Medium | Also affects weblate |
| GHSA-6wxc-8mgq-w26m Weblate: Stored HTML injection in editor search preview | Medium | Also affects weblate |
| GHSA-5cmv-3rc4-7279 Weblate vulnerable to XSS via crafted Markdown | Medium | Also affects weblate |
| GHSA-gcg5-86jr-f7jg Weblate Vulnerable to Private Translation Enumeration via Screenshot API | Medium | Also affects weblate |
| GHSA-cwcx-382v-8m9g Weblate Vulnerable to Authenticated SSRF via Project Backup Import bypassing validate_repo_url | High | Also affects weblate |
| GHSA-6j8j-4qp3-36p2 Weblate Doesn't Invalidate API Token on Password Change | Medium | Also affects weblate |
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