VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026Updated 12 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-30973: @appium support · Path Traversal

Affects @appium supportSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 7.0.6 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 38% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.0.6

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

Attack Vector: Network
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: 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: 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 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 @appium support to 7.0.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
@appiumsupport	Affected <7.0.6	Fixed in 7.0.6

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2026-30973, organizations should upgrade @appium/support to version 7.0.6 or later, where the path traversal check is correctly implemented and enforced. Until the upgrade is applied, avoid extracting ZIP files from untrusted or unauthenticated sources within Appium workflows. Implement additional validation of ZIP archive contents before extraction, such as verifying that no entry paths contain '../' sequences or absolute paths. Employ sandboxing or containerization for environments running Appium to limit the impact of potential arbitrary file writes. Monitor file system changes in directories used for ZIP extraction to detect suspicious activity. Incorporate static code analysis or dependency scanning tools in CI/CD pipelines to detect vulnerable versions of @appium/support. Educate developers and testers about the risks of processing untrusted ZIP files and enforce strict source validation policies. Finally, consider runtime application self-protection (RASP) or endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to detect anomalous file system modifications during test automation runs.

Description

Appium is an automation framework that provides WebDriver-based automation possibilities for a wide range platforms. Prior to 7.0.6, @appium/support contains a ZIP extraction implementation (extractAllTo() via ZipExtractor.extract()) with a path traversal (Zip Slip) check that is non-functional. The check at line 88 of packages/support/lib/zip.js creates an Error object but never throws it, allowing malicious ZIP entries with ../ path components to write files outside the intended destination directory. This affects all JS-based extractions (the default code path), not only those using the fileNamesEncoding option. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.0.6.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2026-30973 is the potential for an attacker to overwrite arbitrary files on a victim's system by exploiting the path traversal flaw during ZIP extraction. This can lead to integrity compromise of the host system, including overwriting configuration files, scripts, or binaries, potentially enabling further code execution or system compromise. Since Appium is used for automation testing across various platforms, compromised test environments could lead to unreliable test results or serve as a foothold for lateral movement within development or CI/CD infrastructure. The lack of confidentiality or availability impact limits the scope to integrity, but the ability to write arbitrary files can have severe consequences depending on the environment and the privileges of the process performing extraction. Organizations relying on Appium for automated testing, especially those integrating ZIP files from untrusted sources or third-party plugins, are at risk. The requirement for user interaction reduces the risk of automated exploitation but does not eliminate it, especially in environments where automated pipelines process ZIP files. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests limited active targeting currently, but the vulnerability's medium severity and ease of exploitation warrant prompt remediation.

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 17 Mar 2026, 18:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats