dbcve.org
PapermarkApplication

CVE-2025-57682

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-09-22
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 0.20.0 or later.
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
Directory Traversal vulnerability in Papermark 0.20.0 and prior allows authenticated attackers to retrieve arbitrary files from an S3 bucket through its CloudFront distribution via the "POST /api/file/s3/get-presigned-get-url-proxy" API

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 confidence

Directory traversal vulnerability in Papermark's S3 presigned URL generation API (POST /api/file/s3/get-presigned-get-url-proxy). An authenticated attacker can manipulate path parameters to escape the intended directory and retrieve arbitrary files from the S3 bucket served through CloudFront, bypassing intended access restrictions.

MitigationImplement strict input validation and path sanitization on the presigned URL endpoint to reject traversal sequences (../). Additionally, apply least-privilege IAM policies restricting S3 access to only intended paths and validate user authorization before generating presigned URLs.

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
PapermarkApplication
Affected:<= 0.20.0

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. Identify Papermark version
    Check the installed Papermark version by inspecting the package.json file, Docker image labels, or the application startup logs. Common locations: /package.json version field, DOCKER_IMAGE tag, or the /api/health endpoint response.
    Affected if The installed version is 0.20.0 or lower.
  2. Confirm S3 presigned URL feature is enabled
    Verify that the S3 integration is configured. Check environment variables for AWS_S3_BUCKET, CLOUDFRONT_URL, or related S3 configuration keys. Inspect the Papermark configuration file or admin settings.
    Affected if S3 storage and CloudFront delivery are configured and active.
  3. Verify affected API endpoint exists
    Review the API routes or OpenAPI specification for the presence of POST /api/file/s3/get-presigned-get-url-proxy. This can be done by checking the source code routes or attempting a documented API call if authorized.
    Affected if The endpoint /api/file/s3/get-presigned-get-url-proxy is exposed and accessible.
  4. Check authentication is enforced on the endpoint
    Review the endpoint implementation or security configuration to confirm that authentication is required. Test (in an authorized manner) whether unauthenticated requests to this endpoint are rejected.
    Affected if The endpoint accepts requests from authenticated users without additional path authorization checks.
  5. Inspect for path traversal protection
    Review the source code or proxy configuration for the presigned URL generation logic. Look for input validation that sanitizes or rejects path parameters containing ../ sequences before constructing the S3 path.
    Affected if Path parameters are not validated to reject directory traversal sequences like ../.

You are affected if Papermark version 0.20.0 or lower is installed, the S3 presigned URL endpoint is accessible, and no input validation exists to block path traversal sequences in the path parameter.

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
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 0.20.0
Interim mitigation

Implement strict input validation and path sanitization on the presigned URL endpoint to reject traversal sequences (../). Additionally, apply least-privilege IAM policies restricting S3 access to only intended paths and validate user authorization before generating presigned URLs.

Fix this in Papermark Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get the upgrade done

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-57682 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2025-57682 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