CVE-2025-51475VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-51475: SuperAGI · n/a

Affects SuperAGISource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.0 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 22 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubtransformeroptimus/SuperAGI`pkg:github/transformeroptimus/SuperAGI`Other threats	Affected =0.0.14	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-51475, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Immediately upgrade TransformerOptimus SuperAGI to a patched version once available from the vendor; 2) In the interim, apply custom input validation on the file upload endpoint to reject filenames containing directory traversal sequences or suspicious characters; 3) Employ strict server-side path normalization and enforce whitelist-based directory constraints to ensure uploaded files cannot escape designated directories; 4) Restrict file system permissions for the application process to minimize the impact of potential overwrites, ensuring it cannot modify critical system or application files; 5) Monitor logs for anomalous file upload activities and implement intrusion detection rules targeting directory traversal patterns; 6) Conduct thorough code reviews and penetration testing focused on file handling components; 7) Isolate SuperAGI deployments within segmented network zones to limit lateral movement in case of compromise. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice and address the specific exploitation vectors of this vulnerability.

Description

Arbitrary File Overwrite (AFO) in superagi.controllers.resources.upload in TransformerOptimus SuperAGI 0.0.14 allows remote attackers to overwrite arbitrary files via unsanitised filenames submitted to the file upload endpoint, due to improper handling of directory traversal in os.path.join() and lack of path validation in get_root_input_dir().

Impact

For European organizations using TransformerOptimus SuperAGI 0.0.14, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk to confidentiality, integrity, and availability of their systems. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to overwrite configuration files, application binaries, or sensitive data, potentially leading to unauthorized code execution, system compromise, or service disruption. This is particularly concerning for organizations relying on SuperAGI for automation, AI workflows, or critical business processes. The ability to overwrite arbitrary files without authentication increases the attack surface and the likelihood of targeted attacks against European enterprises. Additionally, regulatory frameworks such as GDPR impose strict requirements on data protection and incident response; a breach resulting from this vulnerability could lead to significant legal and financial repercussions. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the vulnerability's characteristics warrant immediate attention to prevent exploitation.

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 22 Jul 2025, 19:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats