VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-23907: Apache PDFBox Examples · Path Traversal

Affects Apache PDFBox ExamplesSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 3.0.7 or 2.0.36 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 59% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.0.7, 2.0.36

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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 impacted component.
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 10 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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 org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox to 3.0.7 or 2.0.36.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apache Software FoundationApache PDFBox Examples	Affected >=2.0.24 <=2.0.35 >=3.0.0 <=3.0.6	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox`pkg:maven/org.apache.pdfbox/pdfbox`Other threats	Affected >=2.0.24 <2.0.36 >=3.0.0 <3.0.7	Fixed in 2.0.36 3.0.7
MavenApache Software Foundation/org.apache.pdfbox:pdfbox-examples`pkg:maven/Apache Software Foundation/org.apache.pdfbox:pdfbox-examples`Other threats	Affected >=2.0.24 <=2.0.35 >=3.0.0 <=3.0.6	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately review their use of Apache PDFBox, particularly any custom code derived from the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example. They should ensure that extraction paths are properly sanitized and validated by converting paths to their canonical forms and verifying that the extraction path is contained within the intended directory, as recommended by the Apache PDFBox project. Avoid using example code directly in production without security review. Upgrade to Apache PDFBox versions later than 2.0.36 or 3.0.7 where the example has been corrected. Implement strict input validation and sandboxing when processing untrusted PDF files, including limiting file system permissions of the extraction process to prevent unauthorized file writes. Monitor logs for suspicious file extraction activities and consider employing runtime application self-protection (RASP) or endpoint detection to detect anomalous file system operations. Educate developers on secure coding practices to prevent path traversal vulnerabilities. If upgrading is not immediately possible, apply manual patches to the extraction logic to enforce path validation. Finally, restrict the acceptance of PDF files from untrusted sources or implement additional scanning before processing.

Description

This issue affects the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example in Apache PDFBox: from 2.0.24 through 2.0.35, from 3.0.0 through 3.0.6. The ExtractEmbeddedFiles example contains a path traversal vulnerability (CWE-22) because the filename that is obtained from PDComplexFileSpecification.getFilename() is appended to the extraction path. Users who have copied this example into their production code should review it to ensure that the extraction path is acceptable. The example has been changed accordingly, now the initial path and the extraction paths are converted into canonical paths and it is verified that extraction path contains the initial path. The documentation has also been adjusted.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential for arbitrary file write outside the intended extraction directory, which can lead to several security issues. An attacker could overwrite critical system or application files, potentially leading to denial of service, privilege escalation, or remote code execution if the overwritten files are executable or configuration files. The confidentiality and integrity of the system could be compromised if sensitive files are replaced or malicious files are planted. Since the vulnerability exists in example code, the impact depends heavily on whether organizations have incorporated this example into their production workflows without additional safeguards. If exploited, this could affect any system processing untrusted PDF files with embedded content using the vulnerable code, including document management systems, automated processing pipelines, or web applications. The lack of known exploits suggests limited current active exploitation, but the ease of exploitation through crafted PDFs and the widespread use of Apache PDFBox in Java applications worldwide means the threat should not be underestimated. The vulnerability could disrupt business operations and damage organizational reputation if exploited.

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 10 Mar 2026, 14:04 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats