CVE-2025-40629
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 · uneditedPNETLab 4.2.10 does not properly sanitize user inputs in its file access mechanisms. This allows attackers to perform directory traversal by manipulating file paths in HTTP requests. Specifically, the application is vulnerable to requests that access sensitive files outside the intended directory.
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 · high confidencePNETLab 4.2.10 contains a path traversal vulnerability where HTTP requests with manipulated file paths allow attackers to escape the intended directory and access sensitive files outside the web root. The application fails to sanitize user-supplied path inputs, permitting '..' sequences or absolute path manipulation in file access mechanisms.
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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 PNETLab installation and versionLocate the PNETLab installation directory and check the version file, typically found in the application root or version information file. Alternatively, access the web interface login page and look for version information in the footer or about page.Affected if The installed version is PNETLab 4.2.10 or earlier within the 4.x line.
-
Verify web interface is accessibleConfirm the PNETLab web interface (typically on ports 80, 443, or a custom port) is running and accessible. This vulnerability is exploitable through HTTP requests.Affected if The web interface is exposed and accepts HTTP requests.
-
Identify file access endpointsReview the web application's available endpoints, particularly any file upload, download, or file viewing functionality. Look for features that accept file paths as parameters.Affected if The application contains file access features that accept user-supplied path parameters.
-
Check input validation on file operationsExamine application configuration and code (if accessible) to determine whether path traversal sequences ('..') or absolute paths are validated before file operations. Look for lack of canonicalization or path boundary checks.Affected if File access mechanisms do not validate or sanitize path inputs, allowing '..' sequences or absolute paths.
A user is affected if running PNETLab 4.2.10 (or earlier 4.x versions) with the web interface enabled and file access functionality present that lacks proper path input 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 with path canonicalization, whitelist allowed directories, and ensure all file access operations validate that the resolved path stays within the intended directory boundaries.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-40629 — 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-2025-40629 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