VulnerabilityPublished 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-68430: cvat · Path Traversal: '../filedir

Affects cvatSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 2.53.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.53.0

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

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

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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 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

Upgrade cvat-ai/cvat to 2.53.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubcvat-ai/cvat`pkg:github/cvat-ai/cvat`Other threats	Affected >=2.8.1 <2.53.0	Fixed in 2.53.0

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 all CVAT instances to version 2.53.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Since no workarounds exist, organizations should prioritize patch management. Additionally, implement strict access controls and monitoring on CVAT user accounts to prevent unauthorized access. Enforce strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication (MFA), to reduce the risk of account compromise. Network segmentation should be employed to limit CVAT server exposure to trusted internal networks only. Logging and alerting on unusual directory traversal attempts or abnormal user behavior can help detect exploitation attempts. Regularly audit CVAT configurations and user permissions to minimize privilege levels. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, consider restricting CVAT access via VPN or IP whitelisting to trusted users. Finally, educate users about the risks of credential compromise and enforce password hygiene.

Description

CVAT is an open source interactive video and image annotation tool for computer vision. In versions 2.8.1 through 2.52.0, an attacker with an account on a CVAT instance is able to retrieve the contents of any file system directory accessible to the CVAT server. The exposed information is names of contained files and subdirectories. The contents of files are not accessible. Version 2.53.0 contains a patch. No known workarounds are available.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact primarily involves information disclosure that could assist attackers in mapping the server filesystem, identifying sensitive directories, or locating configuration files and scripts. While direct file content access is not possible, knowledge of directory contents can facilitate targeted attacks such as privilege escalation, exploitation of other vulnerabilities, or social engineering. Organizations in sectors heavily invested in AI, autonomous systems, or research institutions using CVAT for annotation tasks are at higher risk. Exposure of directory structures could also reveal operational details or intellectual property indirectly. Since exploitation requires authenticated access, insider threats or compromised user accounts pose a significant risk. The vulnerability does not directly impact system availability or integrity but can be a stepping stone in multi-stage attacks. The medium CVSS score reflects moderate risk, but the absence of known exploits suggests limited immediate threat. However, delayed patching could increase exposure, especially in environments with weak account management or where CVAT instances are internet-facing.

CWE-24Path Traversal: '../filedir' (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "../" sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that 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.
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 ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (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 19 Dec 2025, 17:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-24

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats