GoshsApplication
CVE-2026-35471
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 · uneditedgoshs is a SimpleHTTPServer written in Go. Prior to 2.0.0-beta.3, tdeleteFile() missing return after path traversal check. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.0.0-beta.3.
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 confidenceIn goshs prior to 2.0.0-beta.3, the tdeleteFile() function contains a path traversal check but lacks a return statement afterward, allowing the function to continue execution and potentially delete files outside the intended directory. This unauthenticated path traversal vulnerability enables arbitrary file deletion with CVSS 9.8 critical severity.
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
GoshsApplication
< 2.0.0= 2.0.0CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 if goshs is installedCheck for goshs binary in common locations such as /usr/bin/goshs, /usr/local/bin/goshs, or search using 'which goshs' or 'find / -name goshs 2>/dev/null'Affected if goshs binary is found on the system
-
Determine installed goshs versionRun 'goshs --version' or check the binary version through your package manager if installed via apt/yum/dpkgAffected if Version is below 2.0.0 (e.g., 1.x.x) or equals exactly 2.0.0
-
Verify the specific vulnerable binaryIf version cannot be determined via flag, check the binary file modification date or inspect the binary for the tdeleteFile function signatureAffected if Cannot confirm version is 2.0.0-beta.3 or later
You are affected if goshs is installed and the version is less than 2.0.0 or exactly 2.0.0, as these versions contain the missing return statement in the tdeleteFile path traversal check.
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 · scoped2.0.0
Upgrade goshs to version 2.0.0-beta.3 or later to obtain the patch that adds the missing return statement after the path traversal validation in tdeleteFile().
2.0.0-beta.3
- Check current goshs version using `goshs --version` or reviewing your deployment
- Download goshs version 2.0.0-beta.3 from the official GitHub repository
- Replace the existing goshs binary with the new version 2.0.0-beta.3
- Restart the goshs service to apply the updated binary
- Verify the new version is running: `goshs --version`
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Goshs
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $2,144.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-35471 — 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-2026-35471 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