VulnerabilityPublished 7 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-3046: run-llama/llama_index · Path Traversal

Affects run-llama/llama_indexSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% 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: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 7 Jul 2025
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
run-llama run-llama/llama_index	Affected >=0.12.23 <=0.12.28	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation involves upgrading to a fixed version of run-llama/llama_index once available. Until then, organizations should audit and restrict write permissions to the vault directory to trusted users only, preventing unauthorized creation of symbolic links.
Implement filesystem monitoring to detect creation of unexpected symlinks within the vault directory.
Employ application-level input validation to ensure that any file paths resolved by ObsidianReader are canonicalized and strictly confined within the vault directory boundaries before processing.
Use container or OS-level sandboxing to limit the file system scope accessible to the application, reducing the impact of potential exploitation.
Conduct regular security reviews and penetration testing focused on path traversal and symlink attacks in environments using this library.
If possible, configure the application to run with least privilege, restricting its access to only necessary directories and files.
Monitor security advisories from run-llama and related repositories for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability in the `ObsidianReader` class of the run-llama/llama_index repository, versions 0.12.23 to 0.12.28, allows for arbitrary file read through symbolic links. The `ObsidianReader` fails to resolve symlinks to their real paths and does not validate whether the resolved paths lie within the intended directory. This flaw enables attackers to place symlinks pointing to files outside the vault directory, which are then processed as valid Markdown files, potentially exposing sensitive information.

Impact

For European organizations using run-llama/llama_index versions 0.12.23 to 0.12.28, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information stored on affected systems. This includes internal documents, configuration files, credentials, or personally identifiable information (PII) that may reside outside the vault directory but accessible via symlink exploitation. Such data breaches could violate GDPR and other data protection regulations, leading to legal penalties and reputational damage. The exposure of sensitive internal files could also facilitate further attacks, such as lateral movement or privilege escalation within the organization’s network. Since the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability, the primary concern is confidentiality loss. European organizations in sectors with high data sensitivity—such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure—are particularly at risk. Additionally, organizations using this library in cloud or containerized environments may face increased exposure if directory permissions are misconfigured, allowing attackers to plant malicious symlinks.

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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 10:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats