VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2026Updated 9 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-29780: GOVCERT-LU eml_parser · Path Traversal

Affects GOVCERT-LU eml_parserSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium : upgrade to 2.0.1 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.0.1

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: 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: 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 7 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, 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 GOVCERT-LU eml_parser to 2.0.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GOVCERT-LUeml_parser	Affected <2.0.1	Fixed in 2.0.1

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately upgrade eml_parser to version 2.0.1 or later, where the path traversal issue has been patched. Review and avoid using the vulnerable example script recursively_extract_attachments.py in production or modify it to sanitize and validate all attachment filenames before writing to disk. Implement strict filename normalization and whitelist allowed characters to prevent directory traversal sequences. Run email parsing and attachment extraction processes with the least privileges necessary, ideally in isolated or sandboxed environments to limit potential damage from arbitrary file writes. Monitor file system changes in directories used for email attachment extraction to detect suspicious activity. Additionally, apply network and email security controls to reduce the likelihood of processing malicious emails, such as advanced email filtering, attachment scanning, and user awareness training. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries to incorporate security patches promptly.

Description

eml_parser serves as a python module for parsing eml files and returning various information found in the e-mail as well as computed information. Prior to version 2.0.1, the official example script examples/recursively_extract_attachments.py contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows arbitrary file write outside the intended output directory. Attachment filenames extracted from parsed emails are directly used to construct output file paths without any sanitization, allowing an attacker-controlled filename to escape the target directory. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.1.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential for arbitrary file write on systems running vulnerable versions of eml_parser, particularly when using the example script or similar code that does not sanitize attachment filenames. This can lead to integrity violations such as overwriting configuration files, scripts, or other critical files, potentially enabling further attacks or system instability. Organizations that use eml_parser in automated email processing pipelines, malware analysis, or security tools that handle untrusted emails are at risk. While the vulnerability does not directly lead to remote code execution, it can be leveraged as a stepping stone for privilege escalation or persistence if combined with other vulnerabilities or misconfigurations. The requirement for user interaction or processing of attacker-controlled emails limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments that automatically process emails or attachments. The lack of known exploits suggests limited current threat but patching is essential to prevent future abuse. Overall, the vulnerability poses a medium risk to organizations relying on vulnerable eml_parser versions for email parsing and attachment extraction.

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 Mar 2026, 19:56 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats