CVE-2024-23340VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jan 2024Updated 30 May 2025

CVE-2024-23340: honojs node-server · Path Traversal

Affects honojs node-serverSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 1.4.1 : update honojs node-server when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.4.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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 22 Jan 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 2026-10-25.

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 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 upgrade @hono/node-server to version 1.4.1 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by proper URL path resolution. Until upgrading is possible, avoid using the serveStatic middleware or implement additional server-side validation to sanitize and normalize URL paths before serving static files. Employ strict input validation and canonicalization to prevent directory traversal attempts. Additionally, restrict file system permissions so that the web server process has access only to necessary directories, limiting the impact of any traversal attempts. Implement web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block requests containing suspicious '..' sequences in URLs. Regularly audit and monitor access logs for anomalous requests that may indicate exploitation attempts. Finally, educate developers about secure handling of URL paths and the importance of using updated dependencies.

Description

@hono/node-server is an adapter that allows users to run Hono applications on Node.js. Since v1.3.0, @hono/node-server has used its own Request object with `url` behavior that is unexpected. In the standard API, if the URL contains `..`, here called "double dots", the URL string returned by Request will be in the resolved path. However, the `url` in @hono/node-server's Request as does not resolve double dots, so `http://localhost/static/.. /foo.txt` is returned. This causes vulnerabilities when using `serveStatic`. Modern web browsers and a latest `curl` command resolve double dots on the client side, so this issue doesn't affect those using either of those tools. However, problems may occur if accessed by a client that does not resolve them. Version 1.4.1 includes the change to fix this issue. As a workaround, don't use `serveStatic`.

Impact

For European organizations using @hono/node-server versions between 1.3.0 and 1.4.0 inclusive, this vulnerability could allow remote attackers to perform path traversal attacks via specially crafted URLs. This could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive files stored on the server, such as configuration files, source code, or private data, thereby impacting confidentiality. Although integrity and availability are not directly affected, the exposure of sensitive information could facilitate further attacks or data breaches. Organizations relying on serveStatic middleware in their Hono applications are particularly at risk. The impact is heightened in sectors with strict data protection regulations like GDPR, where unauthorized data exposure can lead to regulatory penalties and reputational damage. Since exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction and can be performed remotely, the threat is significant for publicly accessible web services. However, the risk is somewhat mitigated by the fact that many clients resolve '..' sequences, reducing the likelihood of exploitation in typical scenarios.

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 8 Jul 2025, 17:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats