CVE-2025-55149
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 · uneditedTiny-Scientist is a lightweight framework for automating the entire lifecycle of scientific research—from ideation to implementation, writing, and review. In versions 0.1.1 and below, a critical path traversal vulnerability has been identified in the review_paper function in backend/app.py. The vulnerability allows malicious users to access arbitrary PDF files on the server by providing crafted file paths that bypass the intended security restrictions. This vulnerability allows attackers to: read any PDF file accessible to the server process, potentially access sensitive documents outside the intended directory and perform reconnaissance on the server's file system structure. This issue does not currently have a fix.
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 in the review_paper function in backend/app.py allows attackers to access arbitrary PDF files on the server by providing crafted file paths that bypass intended security restrictions. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of user-supplied file paths, enabling unauthorized file system 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
- 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:L/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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.
-
Identify if backend/app.py contains the review_paper functionSearch the codebase for the file backend/app.py and locate the review_paper function definition. Use: grep -r 'def review_paper' . or inspect the file directly.Affected if The review_paper function exists in the codebase and handles user-supplied file paths for PDF access.
-
Determine the application versionCheck the application's version via package.json, setup.py, requirements.txt, git tags, or the application itself (e.g., /version endpoint). Compare against any known vulnerable version releases.Affected if The installed version lacks path traversal protection fixes in the review_paper function.
-
Verify the file download/review endpoint is accessibleCheck if the application exposes an HTTP endpoint for reviewing papers (e.g., /review, /paper/review, /download). Review the URL routing configuration in backend/app.py or equivalent routing files.Affected if The review_paper function is exposed via an HTTP endpoint that accepts user input for file paths.
-
Inspect the review_paper function for path validationExamine the review_paper function code in backend/app.py. Look for input validation, path sanitization (e.g., os.path.realpath), or directory containment checks before file operations.Affected if The function lacks or has insufficient path validation - no os.path.realpath() call or directory containment check before opening files.
-
Confirm the application runs with access to sensitive directoriesReview the application's file permissions and directory access. Check if the service account can access directories outside the intended papers folder (e.g., /etc, /home, application root).Affected if The application process has read permissions on directories containing sensitive PDF files outside the intended review folder.
You are affected if the review_paper function is exposed via an HTTP endpoint, lacks proper path validation (os.path.realpath + directory containment check), and the application has access to sensitive directories.
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 dataSince no vendor patch exists, implement input validation with path sanitization using os.path.realpath() and directory containment checks (e.g., comparing resolved paths against allowed directories) before file operations, combined with principle of least privilege file access controls.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-55149 — 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-2025-55149 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