VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48067: OctoPrint · External Control of File Name or Path

Affects OctoPrintSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 1.11.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.11.2

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: 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: 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 10 Jun 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

Upgrade octoprint/OctoPrint to 1.11.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHuboctoprint/OctoPrint`pkg:github/octoprint/OctoPrint`Other threats	Affected <1.11.2	Fixed in 1.11.2

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should promptly upgrade OctoPrint installations to version 1.11.2 or later, where the issue is fixed. Beyond patching, organizations should audit and restrict FILE_UPLOAD permissions to only trusted users, minimizing the risk of exploitation by insiders or compromised accounts. Implementing strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication (MFA), can reduce unauthorized access risks. Network segmentation should be employed to isolate 3D printer management interfaces from broader enterprise networks, limiting exposure. Monitoring and logging of file upload activities can help detect suspicious behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should review and harden file system permissions to ensure OctoPrint has the minimum necessary read access, reducing the scope of files accessible for exfiltration. Regular security awareness training for users with upload permissions can also help prevent misuse. Finally, organizations should maintain an up-to-date inventory of 3D printing assets and incorporate them into vulnerability management programs to ensure timely updates and risk assessments.

Description

OctoPrint provides a web interface for controlling consumer 3D printers. OctoPrint versions up until and including 1.11.1 contain a vulnerability that allows an attacker with the FILE_UPLOAD permission to exfiltrate files from the host that OctoPrint has read access to, by moving them into the upload folder where they then can be downloaded from. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.11.2.

Impact

For European organizations using OctoPrint to manage 3D printing operations, this vulnerability poses a risk of sensitive data exposure. Since OctoPrint is often used in manufacturing, prototyping, and research environments, unauthorized access to files could lead to intellectual property theft, leakage of proprietary designs, or exposure of configuration and credential files. The ability to exfiltrate files could also facilitate further attacks by revealing system details or credentials. Additionally, disruption of 3D printing workflows could impact production timelines and operational efficiency. Organizations in sectors such as automotive, aerospace, healthcare, and education—where 3D printing is increasingly integrated—may face reputational damage and financial losses if exploited. The requirement for FILE_UPLOAD permission means that insider threats or compromised user accounts pose a significant risk vector. Given the growing adoption of 3D printing in Europe, the vulnerability could affect a broad range of organizations, especially those with less mature cybersecurity practices or delayed patch management.

CWE-73External Control of File Name or Path (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
Architecture and Design
When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt".
Architecture and Design · Operation
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory.
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…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Leverage Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
URL Encoding (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 11 Jul 2025, 21:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-73

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats