VulnerabilityPublished 27 Feb 2026Updated 2 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-27734: henrygd beszel · Path Traversal

Affects henrygd beszelSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 0.18.4 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 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 0.18.4

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 27 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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 beszel and henrygd/beszel to 0.18.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
henrygdbeszel	Affected <0.18.4	Fixed in 0.18.4
GitHubhenrygd/beszel`pkg:github/henrygd/beszel`Other threats	Affected <0.18.4	Fixed in 0.18.4

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 upgrade beszel to version 0.18.4 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed by proper escaping of the 'container' parameter. Until upgrade is possible, restrict access to beszel's authenticated API endpoints to trusted users only, minimizing readonly role assignments. Implement network segmentation and host-level access controls to limit who can reach the beszel agent hosts and Docker API sockets. Monitor API usage logs for suspicious or anomalous requests containing path traversal sequences such as '../'. Employ runtime security tools to detect unusual Docker API calls. Review and tighten container monitoring roles and permissions to enforce least privilege. Additionally, consider deploying web application firewalls or API gateways that can detect and block path traversal attempts in query parameters. Regularly audit and rotate secrets and credentials that may be exposed through container metadata to reduce risk from potential leaks.

Description

Beszel is a server monitoring platform. Prior to version 0.18.2, the hub's authenticated API endpoints GET /api/beszel/containers/logs and GET /api/beszel/containers/info pass the user-supplied "container" query parameter to the agent without validation. The agent constructs Docker Engine API URLs using fmt.Sprintf with the raw value instead of url.PathEscape(). Since Go's http.Client does not sanitize `../` sequences from URL paths sent over unix sockets, an authenticated user (including readonly role) can traverse to arbitrary Docker API endpoints on agent hosts, exposing sensitive infrastructure details. Version 0.18.4 fixes the issue.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized disclosure of sensitive infrastructure information. Attackers with authenticated access, even with readonly privileges, can leverage the path traversal to query arbitrary Docker Engine API endpoints on the agent host. This could reveal container logs, configurations, environment variables, or other metadata that may contain secrets or operational details. Such information disclosure can facilitate further attacks, reconnaissance, or lateral movement within an organization's infrastructure. Although the vulnerability does not allow code execution or denial of service, the exposure of sensitive data can significantly increase risk. Organizations relying on beszel for monitoring containerized environments are at risk of leaking critical operational data if running vulnerable versions. The requirement for authentication limits exposure to insiders or compromised accounts, but readonly roles are often widely granted, increasing the attack surface. Since the vulnerability affects the Docker API over unix sockets, it specifically impacts environments using Docker containers monitored by beszel agents.

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 6 Mar 2026, 21:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats