FileCodeBox up to 2.2 POST core/storage.py SystemFileStorage.save_file path traversal
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | $0-$5k | 0.00 |
Summary
A vulnerability marked as critical has been reported in FileCodeBox up to 2.2. This issue affects the function SystemFileStorage.save_file of the file core/storage.py of the component POST Handler. The manipulation leads to path traversal.
This vulnerability is traded as CVE-2025-51661. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. There is no exploit available.
Details
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in FileCodeBox up to 2.2. This issue affects the function SystemFileStorage.save_file of the file core/storage.py of the component POST Handler. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a path traversal vulnerability. Using CWE to declare the problem leads to CWE-22. 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. Impacted is confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:
A path Traversal vulnerability found in FileCodeBox v2.2 and earlier allows arbitrary file writes when application is configured to use local filesystem storage. SystemFileStorage.save_file method in core/storage.py uses filenames from user input without validation to construct save_path and save files. This allows remote attackers to perform arbitrary file writes outside the intended directory by sending crafted POST requests with malicious traversal sequences to /share/file/ upload endpoint, which does not require any authorization.
The advisory is shared at github.com. The identification of this vulnerability is CVE-2025-51661 since 06/16/2025. The exploitation is known to be easy. The attack may be initiated remotely. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available. The price for an exploit might be around USD $0-$5k at the moment (estimation calculated on 11/19/2025). MITRE ATT&CK project uses the attack technique T1006 for this issue.
There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Name
Version
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔒VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 6.3VulDB Meta Temp Score: 6.1
VulDB Base Score: 6.3
VulDB Temp Score: 6.1
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Path traversalCWE: CWE-22
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
EPSS Score: 🔒
EPSS Percentile: 🔒
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: no mitigation knownStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔒
Timeline
06/16/2025 CVE reserved11/19/2025 Advisory disclosed
11/19/2025 VulDB entry created
11/19/2025 VulDB entry last update
Sources
Advisory: 349Status: Not defined
CVE: CVE-2025-51661 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2025-51661
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-333029
Entry
Created: 11/19/2025 21:33Changes: 11/19/2025 21:33 (55)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.