VulnerabilityPublished 5 Feb 2024Updated 21 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-7216: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 · Path Traversal

Affects Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 59% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: 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 5 Feb 2024
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

1. Avoid extracting archives from untrusted or unknown sources, especially on systems running RHEL 6. 2. Apply any available security patches or updates from Red Hat promptly once released to address this vulnerability. 3. Implement strict filesystem permissions to limit the ability of users and processes to write outside designated directories. 4. Use sandboxing or containerization techniques when extracting archives to contain potential malicious writes. 5. Educate users about the risks of opening untrusted archives and implement email filtering to reduce phishing attempts delivering malicious archives. 6. Monitor filesystem changes and audit logs for unusual file writes or modifications outside expected directories. 7. Consider upgrading from RHEL 6 to a supported version to benefit from ongoing security updates and mitigations. 8. Employ intrusion detection systems capable of detecting suspicious archive extraction behaviors.

Description

A path traversal vulnerability was found in the CPIO utility. This issue could allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to trick a user into opening a specially crafted archive. During the extraction process, the archiver could follow symlinks outside of the intended directory, which allows files to be written in arbitrary directories through symlinks.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-7216 can be significant in environments still running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, particularly in sectors relying on legacy systems such as manufacturing, government, and critical infrastructure. Successful exploitation can lead to unauthorized file writes outside intended directories, potentially compromising system integrity and confidentiality. Attackers could overwrite configuration files, implant backdoors, or disrupt services, impacting availability. Although exploitation requires user interaction, targeted phishing or social engineering campaigns could trick users into extracting malicious archives. The vulnerability could facilitate lateral movement or privilege escalation within a network if attackers leverage it to place malicious payloads. Organizations with strict compliance requirements (e.g., GDPR) may face regulatory risks if data integrity or confidentiality is compromised. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often weaponize such vulnerabilities over time.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Nov 2025, 07:01 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats