CVE-2025-58355VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-58355: charmbracelet soft-serve · Path Traversal

Affects charmbracelet soft-serveSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High : upgrade to 0.10.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.10.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 3 Sep 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 2026-10-26.

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 charmbracelet soft-serve to 0.10.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
charmbracelet soft-serve	Affected <0.10.0	Fixed in 0.10.0

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately identify any deployments of Soft Serve versions below 0.10.0 and upgrade to version 0.10.0 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. If immediate upgrading is not feasible, organizations should restrict SSH API access to trusted internal networks and enforce strict access controls and monitoring on the Git server. Implementing file integrity monitoring on the server filesystem can help detect unauthorized file modifications. Additionally, organizations should audit repository and server configurations for suspicious changes and review logs for anomalous SSH API usage. Employing network segmentation to isolate Git servers and applying the principle of least privilege to user accounts accessing the SSH API will reduce exploitation risk. Finally, integrating vulnerability scanning into CI/CD pipelines to detect outdated Soft Serve versions can prevent future exposure.

Description

Soft Serve is a self-hostable Git server for the command line. In versions 0.9.1 and below, attackers can create or override arbitrary files with uncontrolled data through its SSH API. This issue is fixed in version 0.10.0.

Impact

For European organizations using Soft Serve versions prior to 0.10.0, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of their source code repositories and server environments. Attackers could overwrite critical configuration files, inject malicious code into repositories, or place backdoors on the server, potentially leading to supply chain compromises or further lateral movement within the network. Given Soft Serve’s role as a Git server, the integrity of software development workflows could be undermined, affecting software quality and trustworthiness. While confidentiality and availability impacts are limited, the ability to alter files arbitrarily can have cascading effects on operational security and compliance, especially in regulated industries such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure prevalent in Europe. The lack of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive patching, but the vulnerability’s network accessibility and low complexity of exploitation make it a high-priority risk.

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/charmbracelet/soft-serve/security/advisories/GHSA-33pr-m977-5w97 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Sep 2025, 00:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats