Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2024-31552

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-04-19
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
73/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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
CuteHttpFileServer v.3.1 version has an arbitrary file download vulnerability, which allows attackers to download arbitrary files on the server and obtain sensitive information.

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 confidence

CuteHttpFileServer v3.1 contains an arbitrary file download vulnerability, likely a path traversal flaw where the application fails to properly validate file path inputs, enabling attackers to use directory traversal sequences (e.g., '../') to access and download files outside the intended web root directory, exposing sensitive system files.

MitigationIf a patched version is available, upgrade immediately. Otherwise, implement strict input validation and path canonicalization to prevent traversal sequences, combined with network isolation and least-privilege file system permissions to limit exposure.

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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 checks

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

  1. Confirm CuteHttpFileServer is installed
    Identify the httpfile server process or executable on the system using process listing (tasklist on Windows, ps on Linux) or by locating the httpfile server binary/web root directory.
    Affected if The application httpfileserver or httpfserver process is running on the system.
  2. Determine the installed version
    Run the server binary with a version flag (commonly -v, -version, or --version) or inspect the binary metadata, or check the server banner if exposed via HTTP headers or the web interface.
    Affected if The version is 3.1 or falls within the vulnerable release range.
  3. Verify file serving is enabled
    Check the server configuration file (often chfs.ini, config.ini, or similar in the application directory) for settings that enable file sharing/download functionality.
    Affected if File download or sharing features are enabled in the configuration.
  4. Check network exposure
    Review firewall rules or binding configuration to determine if the HTTP service is bound to a reachable network interface (0.0.0.0) rather than localhost only.
    Affected if The service is exposed to network-accessible IP addresses.
  5. Test for path traversal vulnerability
    Send an HTTP request with a traversal sequence (such as GET /..%2F..%2F..%2Fetc%2Fpasswd or GET /..\/..\/windows\/system32\/config\/sam) to the server and observe if arbitrary files are returned.
    Affected if The server returns files outside the intended shared directory in response to traversal sequences.

A user is affected if CuteHttpFileServer version 3.1 or vulnerable version is running with file serving enabled and the server responds to path traversal requests with files outside the intended web root.

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

If a patched version is available, upgrade immediately. Otherwise, implement strict input validation and path canonicalization to prevent traversal sequences, combined with network isolation and least-privilege file system permissions to limit exposure.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-31552 — 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-2024-31552 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