VulnerabilityPublished 23 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-67224: rabbitmq-server · Path Traversal

Affects rabbitmq-serverSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.1 Low · fixed in 4.3.1 : update rabbitmq-server when convenient.

Data as of 6 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.3.1, 4.2.6, 4.1.11 +2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to 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 23 Sep 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 7 Nov 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 to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.3.0 <4.3.1	Fixed in 4.3.1
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.2.0 <4.2.6	Fixed in 4.2.6
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.1.0 <4.1.11	Fixed in 4.1.11
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=4.0.0 <4.0.20	Fixed in 4.0.20
rabbitmqrabbitmq-server	Affected >=3.13.0 <3.13.15	Fixed in 3.13.15
GitHubrabbitmq/rabbitmq-server`pkg:github/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-server`Other threats	Affected 3.13.0 – 4.3.1 10 affected builds	Fixed in–

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 rabbitmq-server versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, and 4.3.1. Users should upgrade to these or later versions to remediate the issue. Ensure that only trusted administrators have access and that the rabbitmq_tracing plugin is enabled only when necessary.

Description

RabbitMQ is a messaging and streaming broker. Prior to versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, and 4.3.1, The trace consumer constructs the output path as filename:join(TraceDir, Name ++ ".log") where Name comes from PUT /api/traces/:vhost/:name. No safe_relative_path / traversal check is applied on the write side, while the read side (rabbit_tracing_files.erl) does call rabbit_misc:safe_relative_path/1 , proving the omission is an oversight, not design. The .log suffix is forced and the endpoint requires administrator. A user with the administrator tag can write a .log-suffixed file to an arbitrary filesystem path writable by the rabbitmq user via the tracing plugin's name parameter, e.g. /etc/cron.d/x.log (if writable) or overwrite existing .log files outside the trace directory. Preconditions include rabbitmq_tracing plugin enabled administrator tag Target path writable by rabbitmq OS user. This issue is fixed in versions 3.13.15, 4.0.20, 4.1.11, 4.2.6, and 4.3.1.

Impact

An attacker with administrator privileges and the tracing plugin enabled can write .log files to arbitrary filesystem locations writable by the rabbitmq user. This could allow overwriting existing .log files or placing files in sensitive locations such as /etc/cron.d/, potentially leading to unauthorized file modifications. However, exploitation requires administrator-level access and the tracing plugin enabled, limiting the scope of impact. The CVSS score is low (2.1), reflecting the limited attack vector and privileges required.

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 1 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats