CVE-2026-26187VulnerabilityPublished 13 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-26187: treeverse lakeFS · Path Traversal

Affects treeverse lakeFSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High : upgrade to 1.77.0 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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 1.77.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 13 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 treeverse lakeFS to 1.77.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
treeverselakeFS	Affected <1.77.0	Fixed in 1.77.0

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all lakeFS deployments to version 1.77.0 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Until patching is complete, restrict access to lakeFS interfaces to trusted users and networks, enforcing strict authentication and authorization controls. Implement monitoring and alerting for unusual file access patterns or attempts to use path traversal sequences in object identifiers. Conduct audits of storage namespaces and file permissions to detect any unauthorized access or modifications. Employ network segmentation to isolate lakeFS services from broader enterprise networks, reducing the attack surface. Review and tighten identity and access management policies to minimize the risk of credential compromise. Additionally, consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules to detect and block path traversal attempts targeting lakeFS endpoints. Finally, educate developers and administrators about secure coding practices related to path validation to prevent similar issues in custom integrations.

Description

lakeFS is an open-source tool that transforms object storage into a Git-like repositories. Prior to 1.77.0, the local block adapter (pkg/block/local/adapter.go) allows authenticated users to read and write files outside their designated storage boundaries. The verifyRelPath function used strings.HasPrefix() to verify that requested paths fall within the configured storage directory. This check was insufficient because it validated only the path prefix without requiring a path separator, allowing access to sibling directories with similar names. Also, the adapter verified that resolved paths stayed within the adapter's base path, but did not verify that object identifiers stayed within their designated storage namespace. This allowed attackers to use path traversal sequences in the object identifier to access files in other namespaces. Fixed in version v1.77.0.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to data confidentiality and integrity within environments using lakeFS for object storage versioning. Unauthorized access to files outside designated storage areas can lead to exposure of sensitive data, including potentially regulated personal or corporate information, violating GDPR and other compliance requirements. Integrity compromise could result in unauthorized modification or deletion of critical files, undermining data reliability and trustworthiness. Since lakeFS is often integrated into cloud-native data platforms, this vulnerability could affect data lakes, analytics pipelines, and backup systems. The requirement for authentication limits exposure to internal or trusted users, but insider threats or compromised credentials could be leveraged to exploit this flaw. The lack of availability impact means systems remain operational, but data breaches or tampering could have severe operational and reputational consequences. Organizations relying on lakeFS for data governance and version control must urgently update to version 1.77.0 to mitigate these risks.

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 13 Feb 2026, 19:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats