GHSA-pgfv-gvc5-prfg CVE-2024-10648 PYSEC-2026-1417
Gradio Vulnerable to Arbitrary File Deletion
- Severity
- 8.2 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.73%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 54.32% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-29 Path Traversal: '\..\filename'
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Description
A path traversal vulnerability exists in the Gradio Audio component of gradio-app/gradio, as of version git 98cbcae. This vulnerability allows an attacker to control the format of the audio file, leading to arbitrary file content deletion. By manipulating the output format, an attacker can reset any file to an empty file, causing a denial of service (DOS) on the server.
Affected versions
PyPI
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| gradio | >= 4.0.0, <= 5.0.0b2 |
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 3.0 8.2
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
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
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why 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 |
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