CVE-2026-34790
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 · uneditedEndian Firewall version 3.3.25 and prior allow authenticated users to delete arbitrary files via directory traversal in the remove ARCHIVE parameter to /cgi-bin/backup.cgi. The remove ARCHIVE parameter value is used to construct a file path without sanitization of directory traversal sequences, which is then passed to an unlink() call.
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 confidenceEndian Firewall 3.3.25 and prior contains a path traversal vulnerability in the backup.cgi web script. An authenticated attacker can manipulate the 'remove ARCHIVE' parameter to include directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../etc/passwd), causing the unlink() system call to delete arbitrary files on the system outside the intended backup archive directory.
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<= 3.3.25CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
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 installed Endian Firewall versionRun 'cat /etc/e-smith/db/configuration/VERSION' or check the web UI footer for the version numberAffected if The version is 3.3.25 or lower (any version <= 3.3.25)
-
Verify the backup.cgi script existsCheck for the existence of /var/httpd/cgi-bin/backup.cgi or /usr/local/httpd/cgi-bin/backup.cgi - exact path may vary by installationAffected if The backup.cgi script is present on the system
-
Confirm CGI functionality is enabledInspect the web server configuration (typically Apache) to verify CGI execution is permitted for the /cgi-bin/ directoryAffected if CGI scripts in /cgi-bin/ are executable by the web server
-
Check for existing administrative or user accountsReview /etc/passwd or the web UI user database to determine if any user accounts exist that could authenticate to the web interfaceAffected if Any authenticated user account exists in the system (even low-privilege users can exploit this flaw)
-
Inspect file permissions on backup directoryExamine permissions on the archive storage directory (typically under /var/backup/ or /var/lib/backup/) and verify if the web server user has write accessAffected if The web server process user has write permissions to directories outside the intended backup location
You are affected if running Endian Firewall Community version 3.3.25 or prior, the backup.cgi script exists, CGI is enabled, and any authenticated user account exists on the system.
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 remove ARCHIVE parameter to ensure only relative paths within the designated backup directory are accepted. Use basename() or equivalent to strip directory components, and verify the resolved path remains within an allowed directory whitelist before calling unlink().
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-34790 — 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-2026-34790 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