Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2025-30596

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-04-03
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
71/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable 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 tstafford include-file include-file allows Path Traversal.This issue affects include-file: from n/a through <= 1.

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

The include-file component from tstafford contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows attackers to access files outside the intended restricted directory through specially crafted file paths containing '../' sequences in the include functionality.

MitigationImplement strict path validation with canonicalization checks to ensure resolved file paths remain within the intended directory, rejecting any input containing directory traversal sequences.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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. Locate the include-file component from tstafford
    Search for files or packages named 'include-file', 'tstafford', or related include functionality in your application directories and dependency manifests (e.g., package.json, requirements.txt, Gemfile, or similar).
    Affected if The component is present in your environment
  2. Identify the installed version
    Check the version metadata in the component's package definition, README, or version file if present. Compare against any known version ranges provided in CVE databases or security advisories.
    Affected if The installed version falls within the affected range or cannot be determined (treat as potentially affected)
  3. Determine if include functionality processes external input
    Review the include-file component's source code or configuration to identify whether user-supplied file paths, parameters, or request inputs are passed to the include functionality.
    Affected if External input is passed to the include feature without apparent validation
  4. Inspect path handling for traversal sequences
    Search the component's code for file path processing logic. Look for whether '../' sequences or similar path traversal patterns are filtered, sanitized, or validated before being used to access files.
    Affected if Path traversal sequences are not explicitly blocked or canonicalized paths are not validated to stay within allowed directories
  5. Check if the component exposes file inclusion over the network
    Identify whether the include functionality is accessible via web requests, APIs, or any network-facing interface that could accept malicious path inputs from attackers.
    Affected if The include functionality is network-accessible and accepts path parameters

Your environment is affected if the tstafford include-file component is present, accepts external path input, and lacks proper path traversal validation to restrict file access to the intended directory.

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 path validation with canonicalization checks to ensure resolved file paths remain within the intended directory, rejecting any input containing directory traversal sequences.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-30596 — 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-2025-30596 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