CVE-2026-49233
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 · uneditedRoutinator does not properly check the module component of rsync URIs, which are used to create the file system paths for the Routinator cache. This allows for path traversal by having a module name containing .., potentially providing an attacker access to the entire Routinator rsync cache.
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 confidenceRoutinator fails to validate the module component of rsync URIs before using it to construct filesystem paths for its cache directory. By specifying a module name containing path traversal sequences like '..', an attacker can escape the intended cache directory and read arbitrary files accessible to the Routinator process.
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< 0.15.2CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 installed Routinator versionRun `routinator --version` and compare the version number to 0.15.2Affected if The installed version is lower than 0.15.2
-
Identify rsync URIs in configurationSearch Routinator configuration files for rsync:// URIs, typically found in /etc/routinator/routinator.conf or ~/.routinator.conf, and check any trust anchor locator (TAL) files that may reference rsync sourcesAffected if Any rsync URIs are configured as RPKI trust anchors or repositories
-
Verify cache directory configurationCheck the 'cache-dir' setting in Routinator configuration to identify the base cache directory used for rsync downloadsAffected if A cache directory is configured (the vulnerability allows escaping this directory)
You are affected if Routinator version is below 0.15.2 AND rsync URIs are configured as RPKI data sources, because the vulnerability requires both the vulnerable code path (rsync processing) and the attack surface (rsync module component in URIs).
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 · scoped0.15.2
Implement strict input validation on rsync module names to reject path traversal sequences ('..') and ensure module names resolve only within the designated cache directory structure.
0.15.2
- Upgrade Routinator to version 0.15.2 or later to resolve the path traversal vulnerability in rsync URI module handling
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-49233 — 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-2026-49233 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