ZulipApplication

CVE-2026-26058

MEDIUM · 6.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-04-03
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 11.5 or later.
See remediation →
64/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Public exploit No privileges Patch available

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
Zulip is an open-source team collaboration tool. From version 1.4.0 to before version 11.6, ./manage.py import reads arbitrary files from the server filesystem via path traversal in uploads/records.json. A crafted export tarball causes the server to copy any file the zulip user can read into the uploads directory during import. This issue has been patched in version 11.6.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-22

A file path is built from user input without being confined, so sequences like “../” let an attacker step outside the intended directory. That can expose configuration, credentials, or source code, and in the worst case lets an attacker write files where they shouldn't. A durable fix resolves and canonicalises the path, then rejects anything that escapes a known-safe base directory.

General guidance for the path traversal class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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
ZulipApplication
Affected:>= 1.4.0, <= 11.5

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
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

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 · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 11.5
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

Zulip 11.6

  1. 1. Review the Zulip release notes for version 11.6 to understand any migration requirements or configuration changes.
  2. 2. Create a complete backup of your Zulip database and configuration files.
  3. 3. Schedule a maintenance window for the upgrade.
  4. 4. Upgrade Zulip to version 11.6 using your deployment method (e.g., apt, pip, or from source).
  5. 5. After upgrade, verify the application is functioning correctly.
  6. 6. Test that the import functionality works with legitimate export files.
Caveat Review 11.6 release notes; security patches typically do not introduce breaking changes but verify any migration steps

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

We can identify the exact fixed release, upgrade, and verify it in staging — typical engagement from $1,600. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-26058 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-26058 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