VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66300: getgrav grav · Path Traversal

Affects getgrav gravSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.5 High · fixed in 1.8.0 : patch getgrav grav soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.8.0

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

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

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: 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: 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 1 Dec 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 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
GitHubgetgrav/grav`pkg:github/getgrav/grav`Other threats	Affected =1.8.0-beta.27	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade Grav installations to version 1.8.0-beta.27 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Until the upgrade can be performed, organizations should restrict page editing privileges strictly to trusted users and review user roles to minimize the number of accounts with such access. Implementing strict input validation and sanitization on user-supplied data, especially in the 'Frontmatter' form, can reduce exploitation risk. Monitoring and logging access to sensitive files and unusual file read patterns can help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, enforcing strong password policies and multi-factor authentication can mitigate the impact of compromised credentials. Regularly auditing Grav user account files and resetting passwords for accounts with suspicious activity is recommended. Network segmentation and web application firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect path traversal attempts may provide additional defense layers. Finally, organizations should maintain an incident response plan to quickly address potential breaches stemming from this vulnerability.

Description

Grav is a file-based Web platform. Prior to 1.8.0-beta.27, A low privilege user account with page editing privilege can read any server files using "Frontmatter" form. This includes Grav user account files (/grav/user/accounts/*.yaml), which store hashed user password, 2FA secret, and the password reset token. This can allow an adversary to compromise any registered account by resetting a password for a user to get access to the password reset token from the file or by cracking the hashed password. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.0-beta.27.

Impact

For European organizations using Grav versions prior to 1.8.0-beta.27, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of user credentials and authentication secrets. Unauthorized access to hashed passwords and 2FA secrets can lead to account takeover, enabling attackers to impersonate legitimate users and escalate privileges. This can result in unauthorized content modification, data leakage, and potential lateral movement within the network. The ability to reset passwords using leaked tokens further exacerbates the risk, potentially bypassing other security controls. Organizations relying on Grav for public-facing websites or internal portals may face reputational damage, regulatory compliance issues (e.g., GDPR breaches due to unauthorized access), and operational disruptions. The limited impact on integrity and availability means the primary concern is unauthorized data disclosure and account compromise rather than service disruption. The vulnerability is particularly critical in environments where multiple users have page editing privileges, increasing the attack surface.

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 8 Dec 2025, 22:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats