CVE-2025-9409
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 · uneditedA security flaw has been discovered in lostvip-com ruoyi-go up to 2.1. Impacted is the function DownloadTmp/DownloadUpload of the file modules/system/controller/CommonController.go. Performing manipulation of the argument fileName results in path traversal. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 exists in the DownloadTmp/DownloadUpload functions of CommonController.go in the ruoyi-go framework up to version 2.1. The fileName parameter is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to use '../' sequences to access files outside the intended directory. This is a classic directory traversal issue enabling unauthorized file disclosure.
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<= 2.1CVSS 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
- 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify if the application uses Ruoyi-go frameworkReview application dependencies, source code, or banner information to confirm the framework is Ruoyi-go (Lostvip Ruoyi Go). Check build files (pom.xml, go.mod), configuration files, or startup logs for 'ruoyi' or 'ruoyi-go' references.Affected if The application is confirmed to be built on the Ruoyi-go framework
-
Determine the installed Ruoyi-go versionCheck the version declaration in project metadata such as pom.xml (for Java RuoYi), go.mod (for Go implementations), or the version displayed in the application admin panel or startup logs. Compare against the affected range: <= 2.1.Affected if The installed version is 2.1 or lower
-
Locate CommonController.go and inspect the vulnerable functionsSearch the source code for the file CommonController.go. Verify that DownloadTmp and/or DownloadUpload functions exist and contain fileName parameter handling without proper path traversal validation.Affected if CommonController.go exists with DownloadTmp or DownloadUpload functions that accept a fileName parameter without sanitization
-
Check if file download endpoints are exposedIdentify the HTTP endpoints mapped to the DownloadTmp and DownloadUpload functions (typically under /common/download or similar paths). Test if these endpoints accept external requests.Affected if The download endpoints are accessible and accept a fileName parameter via HTTP request
-
Verify lack of path traversal protection in request handlingReview the code handling the fileName parameter in the download functions. Confirm there is no validation rejecting '../' sequences, no allowlist validation, and no path canonicalization before file access.Affected if The fileName parameter is processed without filtering '../' sequences or validating the resolved path stays within an allowed directory
A system is affected if it runs Ruoyi-go version 2.1 or lower, has the CommonController.go with vulnerable DownloadTmp/DownloadUpload functions, and exposes these endpoints without input sanitization for path traversal sequences.
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 on the fileName parameter to reject path traversal sequences ('../', '..\') and use allowlist validation for permitted file names. Additionally, implement proper path canonicalization and ensure the resolved path stays within the intended base directory before file access.
- Consultation4.0 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 $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-9409 — 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-2025-9409 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