VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-27610: rack · Relative Path Traversal

Affects rackSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 3.1.12 : patch rack soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 00:34 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (GitHub_M)	CVSS 3.1	7.5

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.12, 3.0.14, 2.2.13

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 10 Mar 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 rack to 3.1.12, 3.0.14 or 2.2.13.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
rack rack	Affected <2.2.13 >=3.0 <3.0.14 >=3.1 <3.1.12	Fixed in 2.2.13 3.0.14 3.1.12

AI-suggested

Upgrade Rack to versions 2.2.13, 3.0.14, or 3.1.12 where the vulnerability is patched. Alternatively, remove usage of Rack::Static or ensure the root directory contains only files intended for public access. Using a CDN or dedicated static file server to serve static content can also mitigate the issue. Since a patch is available, applying the official fix is the recommended remediation.

Description

CVE-2025-27610 is a high-severity path traversal vulnerability in the Ruby web application interface Rack, specifically in the Rack::Static component. Versions prior to 2.2.13, 3.0.14, and 3.1.12 do not properly sanitize user-supplied paths, allowing attackers to access files outside the intended static directory. This occurs due to improper validation of encoded path traversal sequences. The issue is patched in versions 2.2.13, 3.0.14, and 3.1.12. Mitigations include upgrading to these fixed versions, removing Rack::Static usage, or restricting the root directory to only public files. Use of external static file servers or CDNs may also reduce risk.

Impact

An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to read arbitrary files under the specified root directory of Rack::Static, potentially exposing sensitive information. The vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability but has a high confidentiality impact. There is no evidence of known exploits in the wild. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 7.5, reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, no privileges or user interaction required, and high confidentiality impact.

CWE-23Relative Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." 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).
Operation · Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Relative Path Traversal (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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Oct 2026, 00:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-23

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats