CVE-2024-2356VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-2356: parisneo/lollms-webui · Path Traversal: '\..\filename'

Affects parisneo/lollms-webuiSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.6 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

9.6Critical

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

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

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Feb 2026
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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
parisneoparisneo/lollms-webui	Affected ≥ unspecified, < v9.5	Fixed in–
GitHubparisneo/lollms-webui`pkg:github/parisneo/lollms-webui`Other threats	Affected *	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately restrict access to the '/reinstall_extension' endpoint by implementing network-level controls such as firewalls or VPNs, ensuring it is not exposed to the public internet. 2. Apply strict input validation and sanitization on the 'name' parameter to prevent path traversal sequences (e.g., '..', '\', '/') before concatenation. 3. Employ application-level whitelisting to allow only known, safe extension names or identifiers. 4. Run the application with the least privileges possible, avoiding running as root or administrator to limit the impact of potential exploitation. 5. Monitor logs for suspicious requests targeting the '/reinstall_extension' endpoint, especially those containing path traversal patterns. 6. If possible, isolate the application in a container or sandbox environment to contain any compromise. 7. Stay updated with vendor patches or security advisories and apply fixes promptly once available. 8. Consider disabling or restricting the functionality of extension reinstallation if not required. 9. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration tests focusing on input validation and code execution vectors.

Description

A Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability exists in the '/reinstall_extension' endpoint of the parisneo/lollms-webui application, specifically within the `name` parameter of the `@router.post("/reinstall_extension")` route. This vulnerability allows attackers to inject a malicious `name` parameter, leading to the server loading and executing arbitrary Python files from the upload directory for discussions. This issue arises due to the concatenation of `data.name` directly with `lollmsElfServer.lollms_paths.extensions_zoo_path` and its use as an argument for `ExtensionBuilder().build_extension()`. The server's handling of the `__init__.py` file in arbitrary locations, facilitated by `importlib.machinery.SourceFileLoader`, enables the execution of arbitrary code, such as command execution or creating a reverse-shell connection. This vulnerability affects the latest version of parisneo/lollms-webui and can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) when the application is exposed to an external endpoint or the UI, especially when bound to `0.0.0.0` or in `headless mode`. No user interaction is required for exploitation.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk of full system compromise, data theft, and disruption of services. Organizations using parisneo/lollms-webui in production or research environments could have their systems remotely controlled by attackers without any user interaction. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data, manipulation or destruction of data, and potential lateral movement within internal networks. The ability to execute arbitrary code remotely can also facilitate deployment of ransomware or other malware, severely impacting business continuity. Given the increasing adoption of AI and machine learning tools in Europe, especially in sectors like finance, healthcare, and research, exploitation of this vulnerability could have widespread consequences. Additionally, if the application is exposed on public networks or cloud environments, the attack surface increases, making European entities more vulnerable to automated scanning and exploitation attempts.

CWE-29Path Traversal: '\..\filename' (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\..\filename' (leading backslash dot dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that 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.
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 ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Feb 2026, 11:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-29

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats