CVE-2008-7262
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMultiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in FTPServer.py in pyftpdlib before 0.3.0 allow remote authenticated users to access arbitrary files and directories via vectors involving a symlink in a pathname to a (1) CWD, (2) DELE, (3) STOR, or (4) RETR command.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidencepyftpdlib before version 0.3.0 contains directory traversal vulnerabilities in FTPServer.py. Remote authenticated users can use symlinks within pathnames to access files and directories outside the intended FTP root when issuing CWD, DELE, STOR, or RETR commands, allowing unauthorized file system access.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 0.2.0= 0.1= 0.1.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify pyftpdlib versionRun 'pip show pyftpdlib' or check via Python: 'python -c "import pyftpdlib; print(pyftpdlib.__version__)"'Affected if The installed version is 0.2.0, 0.1, 0.1.1, or any version below 0.3.0
-
Confirm FTPServer.py existsLocate the pyftpdlib installation directory containing FTPServer.py: 'python -c "import pyftpdlib; import os; print(os.path.join(os.path.dirname(pyftpdlib.__file__), 'FTPServer.py'))"'Affected if FTPServer.py file is present in the pyftpdlib package (this is the vulnerable component)
-
Check if authenticated FTP access is enabledReview your FTP server configuration file for authorizer settings that allow authenticated (non-anonymous) users, such as FTPBasicAuthHandler or similar user authentication handlersAffected if Authenticated user login is enabled, as the vulnerability requires remote authenticated users to exploit the symlink traversal
-
Inspect FTP root for symbolic linksSearch the FTP root directory for symlinks using 'find /path/to/ftp/root -type l' on Linux or check for symbolic links in the directory that users can navigate toAffected if Symbolic links exist within the accessible FTP directory structure, which could be leveraged to escape the intended FTP root
Your environment is affected if pyftpdlib version is 0.3.0 or earlier, FTPServer.py is present, authenticated FTP access is enabled, and symlinks exist in or can be created within the FTP root directory, allowing unauthorized file system access via CWD, DELE, STOR, or RETR commands.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade pyftpdlib to version 0.3.0 or later, which contains fixes for symlink traversal validation. If upgrading is not possible, implement input validation to reject paths containing symlinks or implement chroot jail restrictions for authenticated sessions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-7262 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2008-7262 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data