VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026Updated 6 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-28807: wisp · Path Traversal

Affects wispSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 2.2.1 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 1.0% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 65% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2.1, 161118c431047f7ef1ff7cabfcc38981877fdd93

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Mar 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 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 wisp to 2.2.1; wisp to 161118c431047f7ef1ff7cabfcc38981877fdd93.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
gleam-wispwisp	Affected >=2.1.1 <2.2.1	Fixed in 2.2.1
gleam-wispwisp	Affected ≥ 129dcb1fe10ab1e676145d91477535e1c90ab550, < 161118c431047f7ef1ff7cabfcc38981877fdd93	Fixed in 161118c431047f7ef1ff7cabfcc38981877fdd93
GitHubgleam-wisp/wisp`pkg:github/gleam-wisp/wisp`Other threats	Affected =2.1.1	Fixed in–
Hexwisp`pkg:hex/wisp`Other threats	Affected >=2.1.1 <2.2.1	Fixed in 2.2.1

CPE configurations (1)

cpe:2.3:a:gleam-wisp:wisp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

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

AI-suggested

If you cannot patch yet, consider implementing access controls or filtering at the web server or application gateway level to block suspicious path traversal patterns, especially percent-encoded sequences. Avoid exposing the vulnerable wisp.serve_static functionality to untrusted users if possible.

Description

Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in gleam-wisp wisp allows arbitrary file read via percent-encoded path traversal. The wisp.serve_static function is vulnerable to path traversal because sanitization runs before percent-decoding. The encoded sequence %2e%2e passes through string.replace unchanged, then uri.percent_decode converts it to .., which the OS resolves as directory traversal when the file is read. An unauthenticated attacker can read any file readable by the application process in a single HTTP request, including application source code, configuration files, secrets, and system files. This issue affects wisp: from 2.1.1 before 2.2.1.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can read any file accessible by the application process, including sensitive files such as application source code, configuration files, secrets, and system files. This exposure can lead to information disclosure that may facilitate further attacks or compromise the confidentiality of the system and data.

Summary

The vulnerability in gleam-wisp wisp (versions 2.1.1 up to but not including 2.2.1) is due to improper limitation of pathnames in the wisp.serve_static function. Sanitization is applied before percent-decoding, allowing percent-encoded path traversal sequences (%2e%2e) to evade the sanitization step. After decoding, these sequences become '..', which the operating system interprets as directory traversal, enabling an attacker to read arbitrary files that the application process can access. This flaw can be exploited without authentication via a crafted HTTP request, potentially exposing sensitive application and system files.

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

CPE configurations (1)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Apr 2026, 05:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats