GHSA-m8p8-53vf-8357 CVE-2026-33027 GO-2026-4907
Nginx Configuration Directory Vulnerable to Recursive Deletion via Improper Path Validation
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.41%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 35.59% 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
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
Summary
The nginx-ui configuration improperly handles URL-encoded traversal sequences. When specially crafted paths are supplied, the backend resolves them to the base Nginx configuration directory and executes the operation on the base directory (/etc/nginx). In particular, this allows an authenticated user to remove the entire /etc/nginx directory, resulting in a partial Denial of Service.
Details
The file deletion logic fails to correctly validate and normalize paths containing URL-encoded traversal sequences such as ..%252F.
When such input is processed, the internal path resolution logic attempts to clamp the path into the allowed configuration directory. Instead of rejecting the traversal attempt, the clamping mechanism resolves the path to the base Nginx configuration directory itself.
Because the deletion handler invokes os.RemoveAll, which recursively removes directories, this results in the deletion of the entire /etc/nginx directory.
This behavior creates a dangerous interaction between path normalization and deletion logic:
- Traversal sequences are not rejected.
- Double-encoding (
..%252F) is used to bypass initial shallow filters. - The clamping mechanism resolves malicious paths to the base configuration directory.
- The deletion handler recursively deletes the resolved path.
As a result, an attacker can trigger deletion of the entire Nginx configuration directory instead of being blocked by path validation logic.
Root Cause
The vulnerability results from a combination of design flaws:
- Improper Path Canonicalization: URL-encoded traversal sequences are not properly rejected.
- Unsafe Fallback Logic: The
GetConfPathclamping mechanism returns the base configuration directory when traversal is detected instead of rejecting the request. - Unsafe Deletion Primitive: The deletion handler invokes
os.RemoveAll, which recursively deletes directories without additional safeguards. (delete.go)
// Delete the file or directory
err = os.RemoveAll(fullPath)
if err != nil {
cosy.ErrHandler(c, err)
return
}
This interaction causes the deletion operation to target the most sensitive directory when a traversal attempt occurs.
Environment
- Server OS: Kali Linux 6.17.10-1kali1 (6.17.10+kali-amd64)
- Nginx UI Version: nginx-ui v2.3.3
- Deployment: Docker / Default installation
Proof of Concept
Steps to Reproduce
-
Log into nginx-ui.
-
Go to Manage Configs and create a Folder named ..%252F..%252F..%252F..%252Ftest <img width="1608" height="559" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/738d7d65-7e13-48fa-affc-d5509c43900f" />
-
Observe that the backend resolves the path to /etc/nginx..
-
Now lets create a file called testing.
-
Save it and rename it to ..%252F..%252F..%252F..%252Ftest (It is not possible to create it directly with the payload name so we have to rename it)
-
Go back to manage configs and Click Delete to remove the file we just created.
-
Check that there is an error: <img width="1578" height="696" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/51a36310-0676-4fe5-b80c-e0199498efbf" />
-
Reload the website and check that the /etc/nginx folder has been completely removed: <img width="1313" height="722" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0a9ddd1b-786b-4cf2-8abd-1dc6f3a77807" />
Impact
An authenticated user capable of invoking the configuration deletion endpoint can trigger the recursive deletion of the entire Nginx configuration directory (/etc/nginx).
This results in:
- Immediate failure of the Nginx service due to missing configuration files.
- Loss of all Nginx configuration managed by nginx-ui.
- Denial of Service for all web services relying on the affected Nginx instance.
As the deletion operation uses a recursive filesystem call, the entire configuration directory is removed, leaving the system unable to restart Nginx until the configuration is manually restored.
A patched version is available at https://github.com/0xJacky/nginx-ui/releases/tag/v2.3.4.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI | <= 1.99 |
No fix yet |
| github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI | all versions |
No fix yet |
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- 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:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GO-2026-6773 Nginx UI: Casdoor SSO callback uses a constant `state` parameter (login CSRF) | High | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
| GHSA-vc32-4gwf-77xp Nginx UI: OTP secure-session step-up can be bypassed via MCP configuration tools | High | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
| GHSA-wq4w-vwvq-q3x9 Nginx UI: Standalone short tokens survive administrative revocation in cache and authenticate again after account re-enable | Medium | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
| GHSA-jrq7-xrjx-pcfw Nginx UI: Auto backup name allows path traversal outside validated storage path | Medium | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
| GHSA-5r62-gj48-897x Nginx UI: MCP configuration tools bypass restricted directive validation and allow secondary authenticated users to execute NJS in Nginx worker context | High | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
| GHSA-9jww-cxg5-rj9m Nginx UI: MCP `nginx_config_add` Bypasses Directive Validation — Authenticated RCE | High | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
| GHSA-76pm-mq2q-9gcr Nginx UI: MCP nginx_config_add skips config directive validation → authenticated nginx directive injection (RCE on the official image) | High | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
| GHSA-cf23-7qxj-xmhr Nginx UI: nginx config directive denylist (ValidateConfigFile) is bypassable via same-line ";" separation → authenticated directive injection (RCE on the official image) | High | Also affects github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI |
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