VulnerabilityPublished 9 Aug 2025Updated 11 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-55149: ulab-uiuc tiny-scientist · Path Traversal

Affects ulab-uiuc tiny-scientistSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.7Medium

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: Unreported

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: 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 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.
Exploit Maturity: Unreported: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Aug 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
ulab-uiuc tiny-scientist	Affected <=0.1.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to the tiny-scientist backend service, limiting it to trusted internal networks or VPNs to reduce exposure to external attackers.
Implement strict input validation and sanitization on file path parameters in the review_paper function to prevent path traversal sequences (e.g., '..', absolute paths).
Use application-level sandboxing or chroot jails to constrain the backend process to a limited directory tree, preventing access to files outside the intended scope.
Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block path traversal attack patterns targeting the review_paper endpoint.
Monitor server logs for suspicious file access patterns or anomalous requests attempting to access unexpected PDF files.
If feasible, temporarily disable or restrict the review_paper functionality until a patch is available.
Maintain strict file permissions on the server to minimize the backend process’s access to sensitive files.
Engage with the vendor or open-source community to track patch releases and apply updates promptly once available.

Description

Tiny-Scientist is a lightweight framework for automating the entire lifecycle of scientific research—from ideation to implementation, writing, and review. In versions 0.1.1 and below, a critical path traversal vulnerability has been identified in the review_paper function in backend/app.py. The vulnerability allows malicious users to access arbitrary PDF files on the server by providing crafted file paths that bypass the intended security restrictions. This vulnerability allows attackers to: read any PDF file accessible to the server process, potentially access sensitive documents outside the intended directory and perform reconnaissance on the server's file system structure. This issue does not currently have a fix.

Impact

For European organizations, especially academic institutions, research centers, and companies involved in scientific research, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to confidentiality. Unauthorized disclosure of sensitive research papers, intellectual property, or internal documentation could lead to competitive disadvantage, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR if personal data is exposed), and reputational damage. Since tiny-scientist is a framework used to automate scientific workflows, organizations relying on it for managing research documents may inadvertently expose critical data. The vulnerability could also facilitate further attacks by providing attackers with detailed knowledge of the server's file system and contents. Given the medium severity and no authentication requirement, attackers can exploit this remotely without user interaction, increasing the threat surface. The absence of a patch means organizations must proactively implement mitigations to prevent data leakage. The impact is particularly acute for entities handling sensitive or proprietary scientific data, including pharmaceutical companies, universities, and government research agencies within Europe.

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

github.com/ulab-uiuc/tiny-scientist/security/advisories/GHSA-rrgf-hcr9-jq6h (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Aug 2025, 01:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats