Threat Intelligence Database

Banks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a simple template language. Prior to version 2.4.5, DirectoryPromptRegistry.set() in src/banks/registries/directory.py interpolates attacker-controlled Prompt.name and Prompt.version values into a Path without canonicalization or containment validation. Relative traversal such as ../victim/foo and an absolute Prompt.name can escape or discard the configured registry root, while overwrite=True permits replacement of existing target files. The poisoned name is persisted in index.json and reconstructed by _load(), allowing the out-of-root path to survive later registry loads. An application that forwards request data into these fields can therefore write Prompt.raw bytes to attacker-chosen paths writable by the application process. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.5.

CVE-2026-62663 is a path traversal vulnerability in the masci banks product prior to version 2.4.4. The vulnerability arises because banks accepts untrusted user input as file paths without sanitization or directory restrictions, allowing attackers to read arbitrary files accessible to the Python process. This can lead to exposure of sensitive files such as .env, SSH keys, cloud credentials, and system files like /etc/passwd and /etc/shadow. The issue has been fixed in version 2.4.4.

Banks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a template language that makes sense. Prior to 2.4.2, banks uses jinja2.Environment() (unsandboxed) to render prompt templates. Applications that pass user-supplied strings as the template argument to Prompt() are vulnerable to Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI), which can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the host system. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.4.2.