VulnerabilityPublished 27 Mar 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2024-12905: tar-fs · Link Following

Affects tar-fsSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available (Exploit-DB) · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 3.0.8 : patch tar-fs as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 2.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 83% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.0.8, 2.1.2, 1.16.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Mar 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
1 Exploit-DB entry, 26 days after disclosure
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

CVE ID reserved
by Seal Security
23 Dec 202413:53 UTC, 94 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
27 Mar 202516:25 UTC, t = 0
First Exploit-DB entry (opens in a new tab)
tar-fs 3.0.0 - Arbitrary File Write/Overwrite
22 Apr 2025, 26 days after disclosure

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 tar-fs to 3.0.8, 2.1.2 or 1.16.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmtar-fs`pkg:npm/tar-fs`Other threats	Affected <1.16.4 >=2.0.0 <2.1.2 >=3.0.0 <3.0.8	Fixed in 1.16.4 2.1.2 3.0.8

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

AI-suggested

Immediately upgrade tar-fs to the latest patched versions: 1.16.4 or later for the 0.x branch, 2.1.2 or later for the 2.x branch, and 3.0.8 or later for the 3.x branch.
Implement strict validation and sanitization of tar archive contents before extraction, including checking for symbolic links and path traversal sequences.
Use sandboxed or isolated environments for extracting tar files, limiting filesystem permissions to prevent unauthorized writes outside designated directories.
Employ application-level whitelisting of allowable file paths and names during extraction.
Monitor logs for unusual file modifications or extraction activities.
Review and audit CI/CD pipelines and automated processes that handle tar archives to ensure they do not process untrusted inputs.
Educate developers and DevOps teams about the risks of unsafe archive extraction and encourage secure coding practices around file handling.

Description

An Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ("Link Following") and Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ("Path Traversal"). This vulnerability occurs when extracting a maliciously crafted tar file, which can result in unauthorized file writes or overwrites outside the intended extraction directory. The issue is associated with index.js in the tar-fs package. This issue affects tar-fs: from 0.0.0 before 1.16.4, from 2.0.0 before 2.1.2, from 3.0.0 before 3.0.8.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of systems that rely on tar-fs for archive extraction, particularly in development, deployment pipelines, or container environments. Unauthorized file overwrites can lead to code injection, configuration corruption, or disruption of application behavior. This can facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation, persistent backdoors, or disruption of critical services. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on Node.js and JavaScript ecosystems—such as finance, telecommunications, and technology—may be particularly vulnerable. The lack of required authentication and user interaction increases the risk of automated exploitation if malicious tar files are introduced via supply chain attacks, compromised repositories, or untrusted uploads. Although no known exploits exist yet, the vulnerability’s characteristics make it a likely target for attackers aiming to compromise European infrastructure or intellectual property.

CWE-59Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Symlink Attack (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Nov 2025, 19:48 UTC

Public exploits and detection1 Exploit-DB entry

WeaknessesCWE-59, CWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats