UpunzipperWordPress extension · Upunzipper Project
CVE-2024-35744
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 · uneditedImproper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in Ravidhu Dissanayake Upunzipper allows Path Traversal, File Manipulation.This issue affects Upunzipper: from n/a through 1.0.0.
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 confidenceUpunzipper 1.0.0 and prior versions contain a path traversal vulnerability that allows attackers to manipulate file extraction paths, potentially writing files outside the intended target directory during unzip operations. The application fails to properly validate or sanitize archive entry paths before extraction.
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
UpunzipperWordPress extension
<= 1.0.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Identify Upunzipper versionLocate the Upunzipper installation and check its version file, package manifest, or binary metadata - look for version 1.0.0 or priorAffected if The installed version is 1.0.0 or any version <= 1.0.0
-
Confirm extraction feature is usedReview application logs, configuration, or usage patterns to determine if unzip/extraction operations are performed using UpunzipperAffected if The application performs any archive extraction operations using Upunzipper
-
Check extraction target configurationInspect the extraction workflow to see if user-supplied or archive-supplied paths are used as extraction destinations without validationAffected if Extraction targets are derived from archive entry paths or user input without proper path sanitization
-
Look for evidence of path traversalAudit extraction output directories and logs for files written outside the intended target directory, or check for '..' sequences in archive entry names that were processedAffected if Files exist outside the intended extraction directory or archive entries with '..' path components were processed
A user is affected if Upunzipper version <= 1.0.0 is installed and archive extraction operations are performed where archive entry paths are not validated before writing files.
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 dataImplement strict path validation to ensure extracted files remain within the intended target directory. Use canonical path resolution and reject any paths containing '..' sequences or absolute paths pointing outside the extraction root.
Fix this in Upunzipper
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-35744 — 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-2024-35744 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