VulnerabilityPublished 4 May 2026Updated 8 May 2026

CVE-2026-40076: Org.openmrs.web:openmrs web: OpenMRS Module Upload Vulnerable to Path Traversal (Zip Slip)

Affects org.openmrs.web:openmrs-webSource GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-40076· Critical 9.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 00:07 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

9.4Critical

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

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

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

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: 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: 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: 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent 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.
Subsequent system 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 Subsequent System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System.
Subsequent system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Subsequent System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 May 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Mavenorg.openmrs.web:openmrs-web	Affected <=2.7.8	Fixed in–
Mavenorg.openmrs.web:openmrs-web	Affected >=2.8.0 <=2.8.5	Fixed in–

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

Description

## Affected Versions version ≤ 2.7.8 (latest version at time of disclosure) https://github.com/openmrs/openmrs-core ## Impact The endpoint `POST /openmrs/ws/rest/v1/module` is vulnerable to a path traversal (Zip Slip) attack. An authenticated attacker can upload a crafted `.omod` archive containing ZIP entries with directory traversal sequences. Upon automatic extraction by the server, the incomplete path validation in `WebModuleUtil.startModule()` fails to prevent entries such as `web/module/../../../../malicious.jsp` from being written outside the intended module directory. If the traversal target falls within the web application root (e.g., `/usr/local/tomcat/webapps/openmrs/`), the attacker achieves arbitrary file write and subsequent Remote Code Execution. Notably, other extraction methods in the same codebase (`ModuleUtil.expandJar()`, `TestInstallUtil.addZippedTestModules()`) are properly protected with `normalize().startsWith()` checks — this vulnerability is an oversight where the same fix was not applied. Furthermore, the `module.allow_web_admin` runtime property, which is intended to restrict administrators from managing modules via the web interface, only gates the Legacy UI controller entry point. The REST API endpoint `POST /openmrs/ws/rest/v1/module` does not check this property, allowing this restriction to be fully bypassed. ## Steps to Reproduce 1. Construct a malicious `.omod` file (which is a ZIP/JAR archive) containing a ZIP entry with a path traversal payload in its entry name, such as `web/module/../../../../<target_filename>`. Upload this file to `POST /openmrs/ws/rest/v1/module` with valid admin credentials via Basic Auth. <img width="1986" height="1102" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/647f15de-7e8c-40b9-aba9-d4db5d2e0b52" /> <img width="2048" height="1078" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/301412a0-e3b0-4afb-91c2-e9739de3080d" /> 2. The server parses and loads the module. During `WebModuleUtil.startModule()`, entries under `web/module/` are automatically extracted. The existing check `Paths.get(name).startsWith("..")` only blocks entries beginning with `..`, so an entry starting with `web/module/` passes the check. The `../` sequences in the remaining path cause the file to be written outside the intended `WEB-INF/view/module/` directory — for example, into the web application root at `/usr/local/tomcat/webapps/openmrs/`. <img width="1439" height="141" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4bda3b1e-a80e-42ed-af2b-a1da53e8db03" /> 3. The traversed file is now accessible under the web application root. If the written file is a JSP script, accessing it via the browser triggers server-side execution, achieving RCE. <img width="1482" height="300" alt="image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/61936002-78cd-4203-80f0-f0a8702b216c" /> ## Root Cause Analysis The vulnerability exists in `WebModuleUtil.startModule()` (`web/src/main/java/org/openmrs/module/web/WebModuleUtil.java`). ### Vulnerable code: ```java Enumeration<JarEntry> entries = jarFile.entries(); while (entries.hasMoreElements()) { JarEntry entry = entries.nextElement(); String name = entry.getName(); // ❌ Incomplete check — only blocks entries starting with ".." if (Paths.get(name).startsWith("..")) { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("..."); } if (name.startsWith("web/module/")) { String filepath = name.substring(11); StringBuilder absPath = new StringBuilder(realPath + "/WEB-INF"); absPath.append("/view/module/"); absPath.append(mod.getModuleIdAsPath()).append("/").append(filepath); // ❌ No normalize() or startsWith() boundary check before writing File outFile = new File(absPath.toString().replace("/", File.separator)); outStream = new FileOutputStream(outFile, false); inStream = jarFile.getInputStream(entry); OpenmrsUtil.copyFile(inStream, outStream); } } ``` **Why the check fails:** For an entry named `web/module/foo/../../../../evil.jsp`, `Paths.get(name)` starts with `web`, not `..`, so the check passes. After `name.substring(11)`, the filepath `foo/../../../../evil.jsp` is concatenated directly into the output path without normalization, resulting in a write outside the intended directory. ### Correctly protected code in the same codebase: **`ModuleUtil.expandJar()`:** ```java // ✅ Correct — uses normalize().startsWith() if (!parent.toPath().normalize().startsWith(docBase)) { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("..."); } ``` **`TestInstallUtil.addZippedTestModules()`:** ```java // ✅ Correct — uses normalize().startsWith() if (!zipEntryFile.toPath().normalize().startsWith(moduleRepository.toPath().normalize())) { throw new IOException("Bad zip entry"); } ``` The fix pattern is already known and applied elsewhere in the codebase. `WebModuleUtil.startModule()` is an oversight. ### By

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

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats