VulnerabilityPublished 8 May 2026Updated 13 May 2026

CVE-2026-41693: i18next-fs-backend · External Control of File Name or Path

Affects i18next-fs-backendSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High : upgrade to 2.6.4 soon.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.6.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 8 May 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 i18next-fs-backend and i18next/i18next-fs-backend to 2.6.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
i18nexti18next-fs-backend	Affected <2.6.4	Fixed in 2.6.4
npmi18next/i18next-fs-backend`pkg:npm/i18next/i18next-fs-backend`Other threats	Affected <2.6.4	Fixed in 2.6.4

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

AI-suggested

This vulnerability is fixed in i18next-fs-backend version 2.6.4. Users should upgrade to version 2.6.4 or later to ensure proper validation and encoding of lng and ns parameters to prevent directory traversal. Until upgraded, applications should avoid using untrusted input directly for these parameters or implement strict input validation and sanitization to block path traversal sequences. Patch status is confirmed by the statement that the issue has been patched in version 2.6.4.

Description

i18next-fs-backend is a backend layer for i18next using in Node.js and for Deno to load translations from the filesystem. Prior to version 2.6.4, i18next-fs-backend substitutes the lng and ns options directly into the configured loadPath / addPath templates and then read / write the resulting file from disk. The interpolation is unencoded and unvalidated, so a crafted lng or ns value — containing .., a path separator, a control character, a prototype key, or simply an unexpectedly long string — allows an attacker who can influence either value to read or overwrite files outside the intended locale directory. When lng / ns are derived from untrusted input (request-scoped i18next instances behind an HTTP layer such as i18next-http-middleware, or any framework that lets the end user pick the language via query string, cookie, or header), a single request such as ?lng=../../../../etc/passwd causes the backend to attempt to read that path. This issue has been patched in version 2.6.4.

Impact

An attacker who can influence the lng or ns parameters, typically through HTTP request parameters or headers in applications using i18next-fs-backend, can exploit this vulnerability to read arbitrary files on the filesystem or overwrite files outside the intended translation directories. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information (confidentiality impact is high) and limited integrity impact due to potential file overwrites. There is no direct availability impact reported. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 8.2 (high severity), reflecting network attack vector, no privileges required, no user interaction, and high confidentiality impact.

Summary

i18next-fs-backend, a filesystem backend for i18next in Node.js and Deno, prior to version 2.6.4, improperly handles interpolation of the lng and ns options into file path templates. Because these values are unencoded and unvalidated, an attacker able to control them can craft inputs containing directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../) or other special characters to read or write files outside the intended translation directories. This vulnerability is classified under CWE-73 (External Control of File Name or Path) and CWE-22 (Path Traversal). The issue is mitigated by upgrading to version 2.6.4 where proper validation and encoding are implemented.

CWE-73External Control of File Name or Path (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
Architecture and Design
When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt".
Architecture and Design · Operation
Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory.
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…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Leverage Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
URL Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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/i18next/i18next-fs-backend/security/advisories/GHSA-8847-338w-5hcj (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 May 2026, 09:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-73, CWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats