VulnerabilityPublished 17 Jul 2023Updated 10 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-37476: OpenRefine · Path Traversal

Affects OpenRefineSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 3.7.4 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:54 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.7.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Jul 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade openrefine/OpenRefine to 3.7.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubopenrefine/OpenRefine`pkg:github/openrefine/OpenRefine`Other threats	Affected <3.7.4	Fixed in 3.7.4

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize upgrading OpenRefine installations to version 3.7.4 or later, where the issue is resolved. For environments where immediate upgrade is not feasible, strict policies should be enforced to only import OpenRefine project files from fully trusted and verified sources. Implementing file integrity checks and digital signatures for project files can help verify authenticity before import. Additionally, organizations should conduct user training to raise awareness about the risks of importing untrusted files and encourage cautious handling of project data. Network segmentation and least privilege principles should be applied to limit the impact of any potential compromise. Monitoring OpenRefine process behavior and system logs for unusual activity following project imports can aid in early detection of exploitation attempts. Finally, consider sandboxing or running OpenRefine in isolated environments to minimize the risk of system-wide impact.

Description

OpenRefine is a free, open source tool for data processing. A carefully crafted malicious OpenRefine project tar file can be used to trigger arbitrary code execution in the context of the OpenRefine process if a user can be convinced to import it. The vulnerability exists in all versions of OpenRefine up to and including 3.7.3. Users should update to OpenRefine 3.7.4 as soon as possible. Users unable to upgrade should only import OpenRefine projects from trusted sources.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be considerable, especially for those relying on OpenRefine for data cleaning, transformation, and analysis tasks. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized code execution, potentially allowing attackers to access sensitive data, alter data integrity, or disrupt data processing workflows. This could affect data-driven decision-making, regulatory compliance (such as GDPR), and operational continuity. Since OpenRefine is often used in research institutions, government agencies, and enterprises handling large datasets, exploitation could lead to data breaches or sabotage of critical data pipelines. The requirement for user interaction (importing a malicious project) limits the attack surface but also highlights the importance of user awareness and secure handling of project files. The medium severity suggests that while the vulnerability is not trivially exploitable remotely without user action, the consequences of exploitation justify prompt remediation.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
Implementation · Input Validation
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.
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…
Implementation · Input Validation
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).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Jul 2025, 20:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats