CVE-2025-56869
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in Sync In server thru 1.1.1 allowing authenticated attackers to gain read and write access to the system via FilesManager.saveMultipart function in backend/src/applications/files/services/files-manager.service.ts, and FilesManager.compress function in backend/src/applications/files/services/files-manager.service.ts.
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 confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in Sync In server versions up to 1.1.1 allows authenticated attackers to read and write arbitrary files via the FilesManager.saveMultipart and FilesManager.compress functions through manipulation of file paths containing '../' sequences.
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<= 1.1.1CVSS 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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
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 Sync In Server installationLocate the Sync In Server application on the system. Check common installation directories or use system package management tools to list installed applications containing 'sync' or 'syncin' in the name.Affected if Sync In Server is not installed on the system.
-
Determine installed versionQuery the installed Sync In Server version using the package manager, application binary, or configuration file. Compare the version number to the affected range (<= 1.1.1).Affected if The installed version is 1.1.1 or any earlier version.
-
Verify FilesManager module is exposedCheck if the FilesManager service endpoints (saveMultipart and compress functions) are accessible on the server. This may involve reviewing API routes, web service configurations, or network-exposed service endpoints.Affected if The FilesManager.saveMultipart or FilesManager.compress functions are exposed and accessible via network or API.
-
Check authentication configurationReview the Sync In Server authentication configuration to determine whether user authentication is enabled and enforced for file management operations.Affected if Authentication is disabled or improperly configured, allowing unauthenticated access to file operations.
A system is affected if Sync In Server version 1.1.1 or earlier is installed with the FilesManager module accessible and authentication configured in a way that permits authenticated attackers to exploit path traversal in file save/compress operations.
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 path validation and sanitization in the FilesManager service to reject path traversal sequences and ensure files are saved within allowed directories.
- 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-2025-56869 — 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-2025-56869 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