GHSA-v76w-3ph8-vm66 CVE-2024-1459

Undertow Path Traversal vulnerability

Medium Maven

Severity: 5.3 / 10; Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 1.71%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 77.40% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-24 Path Traversal: '../filedir'
Fix: 2.2.31.Final; Upgrade io.undertow:undertow-core to this version or later

Description

A path traversal vulnerability was found in Undertow. This issue may allow a remote attacker to append a specially-crafted sequence to an HTTP request for an application deployed to JBoss EAP, which may permit access to privileged or restricted files and directories.

Affected versions

Maven

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
io.undertow:undertow-core	`< 2.2.31.Final`	`2.2.31.Final`
io.undertow:undertow-core	`>= 2.3.0.Alpha1, < 2.3.12.Final`	`2.3.12.Final`

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.

io.undertow:undertow-core Maven → `2.2.31.Final`

maven

<dependency><groupId>io.undertow</groupId><artifactId>undertow-core</artifactId><version>2.2.31.Final</version></dependency>

gradle

implementation("io.undertow:undertow-core:2.2.31.Final")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

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

Attack vector: Network
Attack complexity: Low
Privileges required: None
User interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Weakness

CWE-24: Path Traversal: '../filedir'

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "../" 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

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-1459

Timeline

Feb 12, 2024 Published
Aug 4, 2026 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-3x3v-w654-m28m Undertow: Denial of Service via Multipart/Form-Data Parsing on HTTP GET Requests	Medium	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core
GHSA-33hj-rcmx-86mv Undertow Servlets Vulnerable to Remote DoS via OutOfMemoryError when Passed Large Parameter Names	High	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core
GHSA-j382-5jj3-vw4j Undertow HTTP server core doesn't properly validate the Host header in incoming HTTP requests	Critical	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core
GHSA-6h4f-pj3g-q8fq Undertow OutOfMemory when parsing form data encoding with application/x-www-form-urlencoded	High	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core
GHSA-95h4-w6j8-2rp8 Undertow MadeYouReset HTTP/2 DDoS Vulnerability	High	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core
GHSA-3jrv-jgp8-45v3 Undertow incorrectly parses cookies	High	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core
GHSA-97cq-f4jm-mv8h Undertow Denial of Service vulnerability	High	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core
GHSA-9623-mqmm-5rcf Undertow vulnerable to Race Condition	High	Also affects io.undertow:undertow-core

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