PdfboxApplication · Apache
CVE-2026-23907
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 · uneditedThis issue affects the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example in Apache PDFBox: from 2.0.24 through 2.0.35, from 3.0.0 through 3.0.6. The ExtractEmbeddedFiles example contains a path traversal vulnerability (CWE-22) because the filename that is obtained from PDComplexFileSpecification.getFilename() is appended to the extraction path. Users who have copied this example into their production code should review it to ensure that the extraction path is acceptable. The example has been changed accordingly, now the initial path and the extraction paths are converted into canonical paths and it is verified that extraction path contains the initial path. The documentation has also been adjusted.
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 confidencePath traversal vulnerability (CWE-22) in Apache PDFBox's ExtractEmbeddedFiles example where filenames obtained from PDComplexFileSpecification.getFilename() are appended to extraction paths without validation, allowing attackers to write files outside the intended directory using '../' 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
PdfboxApplication
>= 2.0.24, <= 2.0.35>= 3.0.0, <= 3.0.7CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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.
-
Check PDFBox library versionInspect your project dependencies (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or JAR manifest) for the Apache PDFBox version numberAffected if version is >= 2.0.24 AND <= 2.0.35, OR >= 3.0.0 AND <= 3.0.7
-
Locate ExtractEmbeddedFiles usageSearch your codebase for imports of org.apache.pdfbox.tools.ExtractEmbeddedFiles or references to the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example classAffected if code derived from or identical to the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example is present
-
Identify embedded file extraction logicSearch for usage of PDComplexFileSpecification.getFilename() being passed to file write operations without path validationAffected if filename from getFilename() is directly appended to a base extraction directory without canonicalization or validation checks
-
Verify path validation existsInspect extraction code for presence of canonical path comparison (e.g., startsWith on canonical paths, path containment checks) before file write operationsAffected if no path validation or canonicalization logic is found before writing files using extracted filenames
-
Check extraction directory configurationReview the code setting the base extraction directory - determine if user-influenced paths can be used as the targetAffected if the extraction writes to a configurable or user-accessible directory
You are affected if you use PDFBox versions 2.0.24-2.0.35 or 3.0.0-3.0.7 AND have code derived from the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example that writes embedded files using unvalidated filenames from PDComplexFileSpecification.
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.
dbcve · scopedReview and update any production code derived from the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example to validate and canonicalize extraction paths, ensuring the final path remains within the intended directory.
PDFBox 2.0.36 (for 2.x line) or 3.0.7 (for 3.x line)
- 1. Identify the current Apache PDFBox version in use by checking project dependencies (Maven pom.xml, Gradle build.gradle, or similar)
- 2. Determine which release line (2.x or 3.x) is being used
- 3. For PDFBox 2.x line: upgrade to version 2.0.36 or later
- 4. For PDFBox 3.x line: upgrade to version 3.0.7 or later
- 5. Update the dependency in build configuration (e.g., Maven: change version in pom.xml, Gradle: update version in build.gradle)
- 6. Rebuild the project to incorporate the fixed version
- 7. If using the ExtractEmbeddedFiles example code directly in production, ensure it uses the canonical path validation added in the fixed version
- 8. Verify the upgrade does not introduce regressions in existing functionality
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Pdfbox
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-23907 — 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-2026-23907 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