dbcve.org
Improper Input ValidationWeakness · CWE-20

CVE-2026-45565

HIGH · 8.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-06-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
87/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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
Roxy-WI is a web interface for managing Haproxy, Nginx, Apache and Keepalived servers. In versions 8.2.6.4 and prior, EscapedString (app/modules/roxywi/class_models.py:16-30) is the centralised Pydantic validator used on dozens of fields including SSH credential name, username, description, etc. Its if/elif/elif/else flow returns the metacharacter-stripped value without also enforcing the .. block. An attacker who appends a single ;, &, |, $, or backtick to a .. payload routes the value through the strip arm, where .. survives unblocked and the result is not shlex.quote()'d either. At time of publication, there are no publicly available patches.

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 confidence

Roxy-WI versions 8.2.6.4 and prior contain a path traversal vulnerability in the EscapedString Pydantic validator (app/modules/roxywi/class_models.py:16-30). The validator's if/elif/elif/else flow strips metacharacters but fails to block '..' sequences, and when attackers append command injection characters like ;, &, |, $, or backtick to a '..' payload, the value routes through the strip arm where '..' survives unblocked and the result is not shlex.quote()'d, allowing path traversal potentially leading to command execution.

MitigationNo official patch exists at time of publication. Organizations should implement input validation to explicitly reject '..' sequences and apply proper shell escaping (shlex.quote()) to all user-supplied values used in system calls, or consider upgrading immediately when a patch becomes available.

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
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

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

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Locate Roxy-WI installation
    Search for the Roxy-WI installation directory, typically found in common web app locations such as /opt/roxy-wi, /var/www/roxy-wi, or the application's root directory. Look for the presence of the 'app/modules/roxywi/class_models.py' file.
    Affected if The Roxy-WI application directory exists on the system.
  2. Identify installed Roxy-WI version
    Check the version file or configuration within the Roxy-WI installation directory. Common locations include a version.py file, setup.py, or a changelog/README file. Compare the found version against the affected range: 8.2.6.4 and prior.
    Affected if The installed version is 8.2.6.4 or any earlier version.
  3. Inspect the vulnerable validator code
    Examine the file app/modules/roxywi/class_models.py, specifically lines 16-30. Look for the EscapedString Pydantic validator class. Verify that the if/elif/elif/else flow handles metacharacters but does not explicitly block '..' sequences.
    Affected if The EscapedString validator exists and contains the described if/elif/elif/else flow without '..' sequence blocking.
  4. Identify usage of EscapedString validator
    Search the codebase for imports and usage of EscapedString from class_models.py. Look for Pydantic models that use EscapedString as a field type, particularly in areas handling file paths or system command arguments.
    Affected if EscaedString is used in Pydantic models that accept user input for file operations or system calls.
  5. Check for unsanitized input in system calls
    Review code that passes user-supplied values through the EscapedString validator to system calls (subprocess, os.system, shell=True, etc.). Verify whether shlex.quote() is applied to values containing potential path traversal sequences like '..'.
    Affected if User input flows through EscapedString to system calls without shlex.quote() and without explicit '..' rejection.

A system is affected if Roxy-WI version 8.2.6.4 or prior is installed, the vulnerable EscapedString validator in class_models.py exists, and user input can reach system calls without proper '..' sequence blocking or shell escaping.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

No official patch exists at time of publication. Organizations should implement input validation to explicitly reject '..' sequences and apply proper shell escaping (shlex.quote()) to all user-supplied values used in system calls, or consider upgrading immediately when a patch becomes available.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
24.0 hours of engineering $4,260
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,816.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-45565 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2026-45565 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