CVE-2025-48387VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jun 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-48387: mafintosh tar-fs · Path Traversal

Affects mafintosh tar-fsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High · fixed in 3.0.9 : patch mafintosh tar-fs soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.0.9, 2.1.3, 1.16.5

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 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 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

Upgrade mafintosh tar-fs to 3.0.9, 2.1.3 or 1.16.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmtar-fs`pkg:npm/tar-fs`Other threats	Affected <1.16.5 <2.1.3 <3.0.9	Fixed in 1.16.5 2.1.3 3.0.9

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

AI-suggested

1. Immediately upgrade all instances of mafintosh tar-fs to versions 3.0.9, 2.1.3, or 1.16.5 or later, depending on the version branch in use. 2. Audit all software dependencies and build pipelines to identify usage of vulnerable tar-fs versions, including transitive dependencies in Node.js projects. 3. Implement strict validation and sanitization of all tarball inputs, especially those originating from untrusted or external sources. 4. Use the ignore option to skip non-file and non-directory entries as a temporary workaround if immediate upgrading is not feasible. 5. Monitor file system changes and logs for unusual write activities outside expected directories during tar extraction processes. 6. Employ application whitelisting and integrity monitoring to detect and prevent unauthorized file modifications. 7. Educate developers and DevOps teams about the risks of path traversal in archive extraction and enforce secure coding practices. 8. Consider isolating extraction processes in sandboxed or containerized environments to limit potential damage from exploitation.

Description

tar-fs provides filesystem bindings for tar-stream. Versions prior to 3.0.9, 2.1.3, and 1.16.5 have an issue where an extract can write outside the specified dir with a specific tarball. This has been patched in versions 3.0.9, 2.1.3, and 1.16.5. As a workaround, use the ignore option to ignore non files/directories.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those relying on Node.js applications or development tools that incorporate the tar-fs library for handling tar archives. Exploitation can lead to unauthorized file writes outside intended directories, potentially overwriting configuration files, binaries, or sensitive data, which may result in system compromise, data corruption, or service disruption. This is particularly critical for organizations with automated deployment pipelines, container build processes, or software distribution mechanisms that process tarballs. The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of systems can be severely impacted without requiring authentication or user interaction. Given the widespread use of open-source Node.js components in European tech sectors, including finance, manufacturing, and government, the vulnerability could facilitate supply chain attacks or lateral movement within networks. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests proactive patching can prevent exploitation, but delayed remediation increases risk exposure.

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 4 Nov 2025, 01:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats