VulnerabilityPublished 7 Dec 2023Updated 28 May 2025

CVE-2023-46307: Path Traversal

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 70% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Dec 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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately audit their environments to identify any deployments of etcd-browser, particularly the vulnerable version 87ae63d75260 or similar. As no official patches are currently available, organizations should consider the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict network access to the etcd-browser interface by implementing strict firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure only to trusted internal networks. 2) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block directory traversal patterns in HTTP requests targeting the etcd-browser server. 3) Disable or remove the etcd-browser component if it is not essential, or replace it with more secure alternatives that properly sanitize input. 4) Monitor logs for suspicious GET requests containing directory traversal sequences and investigate any anomalies promptly. 5) Prepare for patch deployment by tracking vendor updates or community patches addressing this vulnerability. 6) Conduct security awareness and training for administrators managing etcd-browser to recognize and respond to exploitation attempts. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, input filtering, and proactive monitoring tailored to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

An issue was discovered in server.js in etcd-browser 87ae63d75260. By supplying a /../../../ Directory Traversal input to the URL's GET request while connecting to the remote server port specified during setup, an attacker can retrieve local operating system files from the remote system.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to confidentiality, especially for entities that deploy etcd-browser as part of their infrastructure management or monitoring tools. Since etcd-browser is often used to interact with etcd clusters, which are critical components in distributed systems and container orchestration platforms like Kubernetes, unauthorized access to local files could lead to exposure of sensitive configuration files, secrets, or credentials. This could facilitate further attacks such as lateral movement, privilege escalation, or data exfiltration. The ease of exploitation without authentication increases the threat level, particularly for organizations exposing etcd-browser interfaces to untrusted networks or the internet. Confidentiality breaches could lead to regulatory non-compliance under GDPR, reputational damage, and operational disruptions if sensitive information is leaked. However, the vulnerability does not directly impact integrity or availability, limiting the scope of damage to information disclosure.

Summary

CVE-2023-46307 is a high-severity directory traversal vulnerability identified in the server.js component of the etcd-browser application, specifically version 87ae63d75260. The vulnerability arises because the application improperly sanitizes user-supplied input in the URL's GET request. By crafting a malicious request containing directory traversal sequences such as '/../..', an unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this flaw to access arbitrary files on the underlying operating system of the server hosting etcd-browser. This means that sensitive files, including configuration files, credentials, or other critical system data, can be read remotely without any authentication or user interaction. The vulnerability is exploitable over the network (AV:N), requires no privileges (PR:N), and no user interaction (UI:N), making it straightforward to exploit. The impact is limited to confidentiality as the attacker can read files but cannot modify them or disrupt availability. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-22 (Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory), a common and critical web application security issue. No patches or fixes are currently linked, and no known exploits are reported in the wild as of the publication date (December 7, 2023).

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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 08:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats