CVE-2026-25760VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2026Updated 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25760: BishopFox sliver · Path Traversal

Affects BishopFox sliverSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 1.6.11 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.11

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: 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: 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 6 Feb 2026
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 2026-10-25.

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 sliver and bishopfox/sliver to 1.6.11.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
BishopFoxsliver	Affected <1.6.11	Fixed in 1.6.11
GitHubbishopfox/sliver`pkg:github/bishopfox/sliver`Other threats	Affected <1.6.11	Fixed in 1.6.11

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 Sliver instances to version 1.6.11 or later, where the path traversal vulnerability is fixed. Organizations should implement strict access controls to limit operator accounts to trusted personnel only and enforce strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Regularly audit operator activity logs for suspicious file access patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. Network segmentation should be employed to isolate Sliver servers from broader enterprise networks to limit lateral movement if compromised. Additionally, encrypt sensitive configuration files and keys at rest to reduce the impact of arbitrary file reads. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) that can detect and block path traversal attempts targeting the website content subsystem. Finally, conduct periodic security reviews of offensive security tooling environments to ensure they are patched and securely configured.

Description

Sliver is a command and control framework that uses a custom Wireguard netstack. Prior to 1.6.11, a path traversal in the website content subsystem lets an authenticated operator read arbitrary files on the Sliver server host. This is an authenticated path traversal / arbitrary file read issue, and it can expose credentials, configs, and keys. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.6.11.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2026-25760 centers on the potential exposure of sensitive operational data within Sliver C2 servers. Organizations using Sliver for red teaming, penetration testing, or adversary simulation could have their internal credentials, configuration files, and cryptographic keys exposed if an attacker gains authenticated operator access. This could lead to unauthorized access to other internal systems, compromise of simulated attack infrastructure, and leakage of sensitive security tooling details. While the vulnerability requires authenticated access, insider threats or compromised operator credentials could enable exploitation. The confidentiality breach could undermine trust in security assessments and expose organizations to further attacks. Given Sliver's use in offensive security, the exposure of keys and configs could also aid threat actors in mimicking or evading detection by leveraging stolen C2 infrastructure details. European critical infrastructure sectors and large enterprises that rely on advanced red teaming tools are particularly at risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially if attackers develop exploits or insider threats emerge.

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 14 Feb 2026, 12:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats