Strategery MigrationsWordPress extension · Strategery Migrations Project
CVE-2024-35745
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 Gabriel Somoza / Joseph Fitzgibbons Strategery Migrations allows Path Traversal, File Manipulation.This issue affects Strategery Migrations: from n/a through 1.0.
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 confidencePath traversal vulnerability in Strategery Migrations library allows attackers to manipulate file paths using '../' sequences to access files outside the intended restricted directory. This improper limitation of pathname to a restricted directory enables unauthorized file read/write operations.
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
Strategery MigrationsWordPress extension
<= 1.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 if Strategery Migrations is installedCheck your project's composer.json for 'strategery/migrations' in the require or require-dev sections, or look for the vendor/strategery/migrations directory in your projectAffected if The package is listed in dependencies or the vendor directory exists with this package
-
Determine the installed versionRun 'composer show strategery/migrations' or check the version field in composer.jsonAffected if The version is 1.0 or lower (1.0 and below)
-
Identify migration file operationsSearch your codebase for calls to migration methods that perform file operations, particularly look for functions that accept file paths as parameters in your migration classesAffected if Migration code reads or writes files using paths derived from user input or configuration
-
Check for unrestricted file path usage in migrationsReview migration classes for file operations (fopen, file_get_contents, file_put_contents, etc.) that use paths containing '../' sequences or concatenate user-controlled input into file pathsAffected if Migration code constructs file paths without sanitizing '../' sequences or restricting paths to an allowed directory
You are affected if Strategery Migrations <= 1.0 is installed and your migrations perform file operations using paths that could contain '../' sequences without validation.
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 input validation that sanitizes user-supplied file paths by canonicalizing paths and rejecting sequences containing '../'. Constrain file operations to a defined allowed directory base.
Fix this in Strategery Migrations
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2024-35745 — 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-2024-35745 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