CVE-2025-52452
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 · uneditedImproper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in Salesforce Tableau Server on Windows, Linux (tabdoc api - duplicate-data-source modules) allows Absolute Path Traversal. This issue affects Tableau Server: before 2025.1.3, before 2024.2.12, before 2023.3.19.
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 confidenceA path traversal vulnerability in the tabdoc API's duplicate-data-source modules of Tableau Server allows attackers to access files outside restricted directories by using absolute file paths. This affects both Windows and Linux deployments of Tableau Server versions prior to 2025.1.3, 2024.2.12, and 2023.3.19.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 2023.3.19>= 2024.2, < 2024.2.12>= 2025.1, < 2025.1.3CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/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.
-
Identify installed Tableau Server versionRun 'tsm version' or check the Tableau Server About page in the web interface. On Windows, also check Programs and Features. Compare the version number to the affected ranges: < 2023.3.19, >= 2024.2 to < 2024.2.12, or >= 2025.1 to < 2025.1.3.Affected if The installed version falls within any of the three vulnerable version ranges.
-
Verify tabdoc API exposureCheck if the /tabdoc endpoint is accessible from the network. Review firewall rules, load balancer configurations, and reverse proxy settings for any routes exposing the Tableau Server API externally.Affected if The tabdoc API endpoint is reachable from untrusted networks.
-
Check duplicate-data-source module usageReview Tableau Server logs for requests to the duplicate-data-source module under the tabdoc API. Look for API calls containing 'duplicate-data-source' or similar patterns in request paths.Affected if Requests to the duplicate-data-source module have been made to the server.
-
Audit API access logs for path traversal attemptsExamine Tableau Server request logs for patterns indicating path traversal: absolute file paths in API parameters, sequences like '/../../' or direct Windows UNC paths (\\server\share) or Linux absolute paths (/etc/passwd) in request payloads.Affected if Suspicious path traversal patterns are found in API access logs.
A user is affected if their Tableau Server version is in a vulnerable range AND the tabdoc API with the duplicate-data-source module is accessible and has been used, as indicated by version range membership and API exposure evidence.
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.
dbcve · scoped2023.3.192024.2.122025.1.3
Upgrade Tableau Server to version 2025.1.3, 2024.2.12, or 2023.3.19 or later. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict network access to the tabdoc API endpoints and implement WAF rules to detect and block path traversal patterns.
2023.3.19 (or latest 2023.3.x); 2024.2.12 (or latest 2024.2.x); 2025.1.3 (or latest 2025.1.x) - depending on your branch
- 1. Identify the current Tableau Server version by checking the Server's 'About Tableau Server' section in the UI or running 'tsm version' command
- 2. Determine which version branch you are currently on (2023.x, 2024.2.x, or 2025.1.x)
- 3. If on 2023.x branch: upgrade to version 2023.3.19 or later (recommended: latest 2023.3.x stable release)
- 4. If on 2024.2.x branch: upgrade to version 2024.2.12 or later (recommended: latest 2024.2.x stable release)
- 5. If on 2025.1.x branch: upgrade to version 2025.1.3 or later (recommended: latest 2025.1.x stable release)
- 6. After upgrade, verify the Tableau Server services are running correctly
- 7. Test that the tabdoc API duplicate-data-source functionality works as expected post-upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52452 — 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-2025-52452 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