VulnerabilityPublished 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-27800: zed · Path Traversal

Affects zedSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High : upgrade to 0.224.4 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.224.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 25 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 zed and github/zed-industries/zed to 0.224.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
zed-industrieszed	Affected <0.224.4	Fixed in 0.224.4
crates.iogithub/zed-industries/zed`pkg:cargo/github/zed-industries/zed`Other threats	Affected <0.224.4	Fixed in 0.224.4

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade Zed to version 0.224.4 or later, where the issue is fixed. Until upgrading, users should avoid installing or extracting extensions from untrusted or unknown sources. Implement strict policies to restrict extension installation to verified repositories or signed packages. Employ endpoint security solutions that monitor and block unauthorized file writes outside expected directories. Developers and security teams should audit existing extensions for suspicious archive contents and consider sandboxing or containerizing development environments to limit filesystem exposure. Additionally, monitoring file system changes in directories related to Zed can help detect exploitation attempts. Educate users about the risks of installing untrusted extensions and enforce least privilege principles to minimize the impact of potential exploitation.

Description

Zed, a code editor, has a Zip Slip (Path Traversal) vulnerability exists in its extension archive extraction functionality prior to version 0.224.4. The `extract_zip()` function in `crates/util/src/archive.rs` fails to validate ZIP entry filenames for path traversal sequences (e.g., `../`). This allows a malicious extension to write files outside its designated sandbox directory by downloading and extracting a crafted ZIP archive. Version 0.224.4 fixes the issue.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the compromise of file integrity on systems running vulnerable versions of Zed. Attackers can leverage crafted extension archives to write arbitrary files outside the sandbox, potentially overwriting critical configuration files, injecting malicious scripts, or planting backdoors. This can lead to persistent compromise, privilege escalation if sensitive files are overwritten, or disruption of development workflows. Although confidentiality and availability impacts are limited, the integrity breach can facilitate further attacks or malware persistence. Organizations relying on Zed for development or code editing are at risk, especially if extensions are sourced from untrusted providers. The requirement for user interaction (installing or extracting an extension) somewhat limits exploitation but does not eliminate risk, particularly in environments where users frequently add third-party extensions. The vulnerability could also be leveraged in targeted attacks against developers or CI/CD pipelines using Zed, potentially impacting software supply chain security.

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

github.com/zed-industries/zed/security/advisories/GHSA-v385-xh3h-rrfr (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Mar 2026, 11:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats