CVE-2024-35474
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 · uneditedA Directory Traversal vulnerability in iceice666 ResourcePack Server before v1.0.8 allows a remote attacker to disclose files on the server, via setPath in ResourcePackFileServer.kt.
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 confidenceA directory traversal vulnerability exists in the ResourcePackFileServer.kt component of iceice666 ResourcePack Server versions prior to v1.0.8. The setPath function fails to properly validate or sanitize path traversal sequences (such as '../'), allowing a remote attacker to read arbitrary files on the server file system by crafting malicious path requests.
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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
Identify ResourcePack Server installationLocate the ResourcePack Server application files or running process. Check for JAR files named 'ResourcePackServer' or similar, or look for a running Java process serving resource packs.Affected if ResourcePack Server is found installed or running on the system
-
Determine installed versionCheck the version of the ResourcePack Server by examining the JAR file name, process arguments, or any version manifest. Compare the version to v1.0.8.Affected if The installed version is prior to v1.0.8 (e.g., v1.0.7, v1.0.6, or any version below 1.0.8)
-
Verify file serving is enabledCheck if the ResourcePackFileServer.kt component is actively being used or configured. Look for file serving endpoints or configurations that allow external path requests.Affected if The file serving functionality is enabled and accessible to network clients
You are affected if ResourcePack Server is running with a version prior to v1.0.8 and the file serving feature is exposed, allowing unauthenticated path traversal requests.
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 dataUpgrade to ResourcePack Server v1.0.8 or later, which contains the patch for this vulnerability. If immediate patching is not possible, implement input validation to reject path traversal sequences in the setPath function and restrict file access to intended directories.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-35474 — 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-2024-35474 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