CVE-2025-1743
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 vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in zyx0814 Pichome 2.1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /index.php?mod=textviewer. The manipulation of the argument src leads to path traversal. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
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 path traversal vulnerability exists in zyx0814 Pichome 2.1.0 in the textviewer component (/index.php?mod=textviewer). The 'src' parameter is not properly validated, allowing attackers to access arbitrary files on the server by manipulating the parameter value with directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../etc/passwd).
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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Confirm Pichome installation existsLocate the Pichome web application directory on the server - typically found in web root folders like /var/www/, /htdocs/, or C:\inetpub\. Look for directories containing index.php and the Pichome structure.Affected if Pichome is installed and accessible via web browser
-
Identify installed Pichome versionCheck version.php, version.json, or any version indicator file within the Pichome installation directory. Compare the found version to 2.1.0.Affected if Installed version is exactly 2.1.0 (the only version explicitly listed as affected)
-
Verify textviewer component is accessibleRequest the URL pattern /index.php?mod=textviewer on the target server. A successful response (200 OK) indicates the component is enabled.Affected if Textviewer component returns a valid page and is not disabled or removed
-
Test src parameter for path traversal vulnerabilitySend a crafted GET request to /index.php?mod=textviewer with a src parameter containing directory traversal sequences (e.g., src=../../../etc/passwd on Linux or src=../../../windows/win.ini on Windows). Examine the response for file contents outside the expected directory.Affected if The response contains contents of files outside the intended Pichome storage directory, confirming path traversal is exploitable
User is affected if running Pichome version 2.1.0 with the textviewer component accessible and the src parameter accepts directory traversal sequences to read arbitrary 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 input validation on the 'src' parameter to restrict paths to expected directories, use realpath() to resolve and validate the final path, and apply proper file access controls. Consider using whitelisting for allowed file locations.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,016.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-1743 — 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-2025-1743 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