TikaApplication · Apache
CVE-2018-11762
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 · uneditedIn Apache Tika 0.9 to 1.18, in a rare edge case where a user does not specify an extract directory on the commandline (--extract-dir=) and the input file has an embedded file with an absolute path, such as "C:/evil.bat", tika-app would overwrite that file.
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 confidenceApache Tika's tika-app has a path traversal vulnerability in versions 0.9 to 1.18 where, when no extract directory is specified via --extract-dir=, embedded files with absolute paths (e.g., 'C:/evil.bat') are written directly to that absolute location on disk, allowing potential overwriting of system files.
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
TikaApplication
>= 0.9, <= 1.18CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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 installed tika-app versionRun `java -jar tika-app-{version}.jar --version` or check the JAR filename to determine the exact version numberAffected if The version is 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, or 1.18
-
Verify tika-app is being invokedReview the command line or script used to run tika-app, looking for the presence or absence of the --extract-dir= parameterAffected if The --extract-dir= parameter is NOT specified and the default extraction behavior is used
-
Confirm extraction output locationCheck the current working directory or the default extraction path used by tika-app when no explicit extract directory is setAffected if Extracted files are being written to their original absolute paths rather than a controlled directory
-
Check for untrusted file processingDetermine whether tika-app is processing documents from untrusted sources that could contain embedded files with absolute pathsAffected if Files from untrusted sources are being processed without an explicit --extract-dir= setting
You are affected if you are running tika-app version 0.9 through 1.18, processing untrusted files, and not specifying an explicit --extract-dir= parameter, allowing embedded files with absolute paths to be written outside a controlled directory.
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 dataAlways specify a safe extract directory using --extract-dir= when processing untrusted files, or upgrade to Apache Tika 1.19 or later which contains the fix for this vulnerability.
Fix this in Tika
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-11762 — 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-2018-11762 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