CVE-2025-22240
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 · uneditedArbitrary directory creation or file deletion. In the find_file method of the GitFS class, a path is created using os.path.join using unvalidated input from the “tgt_env” variable. This can be exploited by an attacker to delete any file on the Master's process has permissions to.
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 Salt's GitFS find_file method allows arbitrary file deletion via unvalidated 'tgt_env' parameter used in os.path.join. An attacker can manipulate the tgt_env variable to traverse directories and delete files the Master process has permissions to access.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Verify if GitFS is enabled in Salt Master configurationCheck the Salt Master configuration file (typically /etc/salt/master or /etc/salt/master.d/*.conf) for the 'gitfs_remotes' setting or look for 'gitfs_' prefixed configuration optionsAffected if GitFS is enabled and gitfs_remotes are configured pointing to external git repositories
-
Check Salt version against affected releasesRun 'salt-master --version' or 'salt --version' to determine the installed Salt version; compare against any known affected version ranges for CVE-2025-22240Affected if The installed Salt version falls within the affected version range and GitFS is in use
-
Inspect GitFS provider configurationLook for 'gitfs_provider' or 'gitfs_backend' settings in the Master configuration to determine which GitFS provider is in use (gitfs, gitlab, github, etc.)Affected if A GitFS provider is configured and the Master process has write access to sensitive filesystem paths
-
Verify tgt_env parameter handling in GitFSReview Salt Master logs or debug output when GitFS functions are invoked; check if the tgt_env parameter receives user-controlled input without validationAffected if The tgt_env parameter can be influenced by untrusted input and is passed directly to file operations without sanitization
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable Salt version with GitFS enabled and configured, allowing an attacker who can control the tgt_env parameter to perform directory traversal and delete arbitrary files accessible to the Master process.
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 tgt_env parameter to ensure it contains only safe characters and does not contain path traversal sequences (.., /, \). Alternatively, use sandboxing or chroot techniques to restrict file operations to expected directories.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-22240 — 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-2025-22240 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