CVE-2018-1265
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 · uneditedCloud Foundry Diego, release versions prior to 2.8.0, does not properly sanitize file paths in tar and zip files headers. A remote attacker with CF admin privileges can upload a malicious buildpack that will allow a complete takeover of a Diego Cell VM and access to all apps running on that Diego Cell.
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 confidenceCloud Foundry Diego versions before 2.8.0 fail to sanitize file paths in tar and zip archive headers during buildpack uploads. An authenticated CF admin can craft a malicious buildpack with path traversal sequences in archive headers to escape the intended directory and execute arbitrary code on the Diego Cell VM, compromising all applications running on that cell.
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< 1.37.0< 2.8.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check Diego versionUse BOSH CLI to query the diego-release version: 'bosh -e <env> releases | grep diego' or check the diego-rep component version on cells via 'bosh -e <env> vms --details | grep diego'Affected if The installed Diego version is below 2.8.0
-
Check CF Deployment versionUse BOSH to query the cf-deployment release version: 'bosh -e <env> releases | grep cf-deployment' or check the deployment manifest versionAffected if The CF Deployment version is below 1.37.0
-
Identify users with buildpack upload permissionsQuery Cloud Foundry's UAA or the cf CLI for users with admin or buildpack uploader roles: 'cf curl /v2/users' and check for roles granting buildpack upload, or review UAA group memberships for admin-level accessAffected if Any user has admin or buildpack upload permissions (this is the prerequisite for exploitation)
-
Confirm buildpack staging is enabledVerify that buildpack-based staging is available in the deployment by checking the diego-cell is running and staging is not disabled in the manifestAffected if Buildpack staging is enabled (required for the attack vector to exist)
The environment is affected if the deployed Diego version is below 2.8.0 (or CF Deployment below 1.37.0) AND admin or buildpack upload permissions exist for any user.
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 data1.37.02.8.0
Upgrade Diego to version 2.8.0 or later which implements proper path sanitization for tar and zip file headers. Additionally, restrict admin privileges to trusted personnel and implement buildpack upload monitoring.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1265 — 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-2018-1265 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