Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2024-1961

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2024-04-16
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
vertaai/modeldb is vulnerable to a path traversal attack due to improper sanitization of user-supplied file paths in its file upload functionality. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to write arbitrary files anywhere in the file system by manipulating the 'artifact_path' parameter. This flaw can lead to Remote Code Execution (RCE) by overwriting critical files, such as the application's configuration file, especially when the application is run outside of Docker. The vulnerability is present in the NFSController.java and NFSService.java components of the application.

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 confidence

Path traversal vulnerability in vertaai/modeldb's file upload functionality allows attackers to manipulate the 'artifact_path' parameter to write arbitrary files to the filesystem. The flaw exists in NFSController.java and NFSService.java where user-supplied file paths are not properly sanitized, enabling potential RCE through overwriting critical configuration files.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and path sanitization on the artifact_path parameter to reject directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../). Additionally, run the application within Docker containers to restrict filesystem access and limit impact.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify modeldb installation and version
    Locate the modeldb installation directory and check the version manifest or build file (pom.xml, package.json, or version file) against the known affected version range
    Affected if modeldb is installed and its version falls within the vulnerable release timeline before the patch was applied
  2. Confirm NFSController.java or NFSService.java are present
    Locate the modeldb source or deployed code and verify NFSController.java and/or NFSService.java exist in the codebase, as these contain the vulnerable path handling logic
    Affected if These specific Java files are present in the deployment
  3. Check if file upload endpoint is exposed
    Identify and inspect the REST API endpoints in the controller that handle artifact_path parameter uploads (typically /artifacts/upload or similar path); verify the endpoint is accessible from your network
    Affected if The artifact upload endpoint is exposed and accepts user-controlled artifact_path input
  4. Verify path sanitization is absent or insufficient
    Review the artifact_path handling code in NFSController.java and NFSService.java for proper sanitization; check if the code contains validation logic that rejects '../' sequences or uses secure path resolution methods
    Affected if The artifact_path parameter is processed without proper directory traversal validation or sanitization routines are missing entirely

Your environment is affected if modeldb is deployed, the vulnerable Java files handle artifact uploads, and the artifact_path parameter lacks proper path sanitization to block directory traversal sequences.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict input validation and path sanitization on the artifact_path parameter to reject directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../). Additionally, run the application within Docker containers to restrict filesystem access and limit impact.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing5.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $2,970
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-1961 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-1961 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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