Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2025-10468

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-09-19
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges 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
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in Beyaz Computer CityPlus allows Path Traversal. This issue affects CityPlus: before 24.29375.

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

This is a path traversal vulnerability in Beyaz Computer CityPlus software (versions before 24.29375). Attackers can manipulate file path inputs using '..' directory traversal sequences to access files outside the intended restricted directory, potentially reading sensitive system files or configuration data.

MitigationImplement strict input validation that canonicalizes file paths and rejects requests containing directory traversal sequences ('..'), or use allowlist-based validation for permitted file operations.

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
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 checks

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

  1. Identify if Beyaz Computer CityPlus is installed
    Locate the software installation directory or check system registry for 'CityPlus' or 'Beyaz Computer' entries. Common locations include C:\Program Files\Beyaz Computer\ or similar. Use 'Get-ItemProperty' or 'dir' commands to enumerate installed software.
    Affected if The software is present on the system and is Beyaz Computer CityPlus
  2. Determine the installed version number
    Locate version information in the software's main executable, DLL, or version file within the installation directory. Right-click the main executable, select Properties, and check the Details tab for 'File version' or 'Product version'. Alternatively, check any version.txt, version.ini, or similar file in the installation folder.
    Affected if The version number is lower than 24.29375 (e.g., 24.29374, 24.29300, any pre-24.x release)
  3. Identify file handling or file access functionality
    Review the software's available modules, features, or API endpoints that accept file path inputs. Check configuration files or the user interface for file upload, download, export, import, or file browsing capabilities.
    Affected if The software exposes any file path input field, file browser, or file transfer feature to users
  4. Check for directory traversal protection in configuration
    Examine the software's configuration files (such as config.xml, settings.ini, or web.config) for input validation rules, path sanitization settings, or allowlist configurations related to file operations.
    Affected if No input validation rules are defined, or traversal sequences ('..') are explicitly allowed in file path configurations

A system is affected if Beyaz Computer CityPlus version is present and is lower than 24.29375, and the software includes file handling features that accept user-supplied paths.

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 that canonicalizes file paths and rejects requests containing directory traversal sequences ('..'), or use allowlist-based validation for permitted file operations.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-10468 — 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-2025-10468 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