VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025Updated 3 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-66302: getgrav grav · Path Traversal

Affects getgrav gravSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium · fixed in 1.8.0 : update getgrav grav when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% 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:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within 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 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
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

European organizations should immediately upgrade Grav CMS installations to version 1.8.0-beta.27 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Until the upgrade is applied, restrict administrative access to trusted personnel only and enforce strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Conduct regular audits of administrative accounts and monitor for unusual file access patterns or backup tool usage. Implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block path traversal attempts targeting the backup tool endpoints. Additionally, consider isolating the Grav CMS environment and limiting file system permissions to minimize the impact of potential exploits. Regularly review and update backup and disaster recovery procedures to ensure integrity and confidentiality of backups. Finally, maintain an inventory of Grav CMS deployments within the organization to ensure all instances are patched promptly.

Description

Grav is a file-based Web platform. Prior to 1.8.0-beta.27, A path traversal vulnerability has been identified in Grav CMS, allowing authenticated attackers with administrative privileges to read arbitrary files on the underlying server filesystem. This vulnerability arises due to insufficient input sanitization in the backup tool, where user-supplied paths are not properly restricted, enabling access to files outside the intended webroot directory. The impact of this vulnerability depends on the privileges of the user account running the application. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.0-beta.27.

Impact

For European organizations using Grav CMS, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive files such as configuration files, private keys, or user data if an attacker with administrative access exploits the flaw. This could compromise the confidentiality of critical business information and potentially facilitate further attacks if sensitive credentials or secrets are exposed. Since Grav is a web platform often used for content management, affected organizations may include government agencies, educational institutions, and private enterprises relying on Grav for their web presence. The impact is particularly significant for organizations with strict data protection requirements under GDPR, as unauthorized data exposure could lead to regulatory penalties and reputational damage. However, the requirement for administrative privileges limits the attack surface to insiders or compromised admin accounts, reducing the likelihood of widespread exploitation. The vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability directly but could be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain.

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, 22:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats