CVE-2026-15527
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 vulnerability has been found in better-auth better-icons up to 1.0.5. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component scan_project_icons/sync_icon. Such manipulation of the argument icons_file leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
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 exists in better-auth's better-icons component (versions up to 1.0.5) within the scan_project_icons/sync_icon function. The icons_file argument is not properly sanitized, allowing an attacker to manipulate file paths and access files outside the intended directory. This is a local attack vector with medium severity (CVSS 5.3).
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 if better-icons is installedRun 'npm list better-icons' or check your package.json dependencies for the better-icons packageAffected if better-icons appears in installed dependencies
-
Check the installed version of better-iconsRun 'npm list better-icons' to see the exact version number, or grep 'better-icons' in package.jsonAffected if The version is 1.0.5 or lower (any version up to and including 1.0.5)
-
Verify usage of scan_project_icons or sync_icon functionSearch your codebase for calls to scan_project_icons or sync_icon (e.g., grep -r 'scan_project_icons\|sync_icon' in your project)Affected if These functions are imported and called in your code
-
Check if icons_file parameter accepts user inputReview code paths where scan_project_icons/sync_icon are called and determine if the icons_file argument can be influenced by external input (request parameters, user data, configuration files)Affected if The icons_file argument can be controlled by users or derived from untrusted sources
You are affected if better-icons version 1.0.5 or lower is installed AND your code calls scan_project_icons/sync_icon with user-controllable icons_file paths.
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 dataUntil an official patch is released, restrict file system permissions on the host running better-icons and validate any icon file paths processed by scan_project_icons/sync_icon to ensure they remain within expected directory bounds. Consider upgrading immediately once the vendor releases a fix.
- 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-2026-15527 — 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-2026-15527 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