VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jun 2024Updated 15 Oct 2025

CVE-2024-1873: parisneo/lollms-webui · Path Traversal

Affects parisneo/lollms-webuiSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · 13% EPSS · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 13.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 96% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

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

To mitigate CVE-2024-1873, European organizations should first identify all instances of parisneo/lollms-webui in their environment and assess exposure of the /select_database endpoint. Immediate mitigation steps include implementing strict input validation and sanitization on file path parameters to enforce directory restrictions and prevent absolute path usage. If source code modification is feasible, patch the application to enforce whitelist-based path validation and restrict file system operations to designated safe directories. Network-level controls such as firewall rules or web application firewalls (WAFs) should be configured to restrict access to the vulnerable endpoint to trusted internal networks only. Regular backups of client data and critical configuration files should be maintained to enable recovery in case of data loss or corruption. Monitoring and alerting on unusual file system activity or unexpected directory creations can help detect exploitation attempts early. Finally, coordinate with the vendor or community for official patches or updates and apply them promptly once available.

Description

parisneo/lollms-webui is vulnerable to path traversal and denial of service attacks due to an exposed `/select_database` endpoint in version a9d16b0. The endpoint improperly handles file paths, allowing attackers to specify absolute paths when interacting with the `DiscussionsDB` instance. This flaw enables attackers to create directories anywhere on the system where the application has permissions, potentially leading to denial of service by creating directories with names of critical files, such as HTTPS certificate files, causing server startup failures. Additionally, attackers can manipulate the database path, resulting in the loss of client data by constantly changing the file location to an attacker-controlled location, scattering the data across the filesystem and making recovery difficult.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-1873 can be significant, especially for those relying on parisneo/lollms-webui for critical discussion or database management functions. The ability for attackers to manipulate database file paths and create directories arbitrarily can lead to data integrity loss, affecting client trust and compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR. Denial of service caused by overwriting critical files like HTTPS certificates can disrupt services, impacting business continuity and potentially causing reputational damage. Organizations in sectors with high data sensitivity—such as finance, healthcare, and government—face elevated risks due to the potential loss or scattering of client data. Additionally, recovery from such attacks may require extensive forensic analysis and data restoration efforts, increasing operational costs. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit makes it accessible to a wide range of attackers, increasing the likelihood of exploitation if the software is exposed to the internet or untrusted networks.

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 15 Oct 2025, 13:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats