CVE-2022-31566
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 · uneditedThe DSAB-local/DSAB repository through 2019-02-18 on GitHub allows absolute path traversal because the Flask send_file function is used unsafely.
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 · moderate confidenceThe DSAB-local/DSAB repository contains an absolute path traversal vulnerability due to unsafe usage of Flask's send_file function. This allows attackers to access arbitrary files on the server by manipulating file paths in requests, potentially exposing sensitive system files or application data.
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<= 2019-02-18CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Check DSAB versionRun pip show dsab or pip list | grep -i dsab to see the installed version and compare it to the <= 2019-02-18 affected versionAffected if The installed version date is 2019-02-18 or earlier
-
Locate Flask send_file usageSearch the codebase for 'send_file' function calls: grep -r 'send_file' /path/to/dsab or grep -r 'send_file' . in the project directoryAffected if send_file is used in the application code without path validation
-
Inspect send_file call for path validationExamine the specific send_file call found and check if it uses safe_join, os.path.join with directory checks, or any path sanitization before passing the filename parameterAffected if The send_file call passes user-controlled input directly to the filename parameter without validation like safe_join
-
Identify file download endpointsReview Flask route handlers that accept file path parameters, typically routes with <path:filename> or <string:filename> URL patterns that are used with send_fileAffected if A route exists that accepts a file path parameter and passes it to send_file without validation
-
Test for path traversal vulnerabilityIf the endpoint is accessible, send a request with path traversal such as /download/../../etc/passwd or /download/../../application/config.py to see if arbitrary files can be accessedAffected if The application returns file contents from outside the intended directory
You are affected if DSAB version is 2019-02-18 or earlier AND the application uses Flask's send_file with unvalidated path parameters in accessible endpoints.
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 dataReplace unsafe send_file calls with secure alternatives such as Flask's safe_join function to validate and sanitize file paths, ensuring only intended files within allowed directories can be accessed.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-31566 — 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-2022-31566 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