CVE-2026-54093
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 · uneditedFile Browser is a file managing interface for uploading, deleting, previewing, renaming, and editing files within a specified directory. Prior to 2.63.6, filebrowser builds the download-as-zip / download-as-tar archive entry names with filepath.ToSlash, which on a Linux host is a no-op for backslashes (\ is only a path separator on Windows). A file whose name contains Windows-style traversal is accepted by the resource handlers, stored on the Linux filesystem with a literal backslash name, and then emitted verbatim as the archive entry name. Windows extractors interpret \ as a path separator and write the extracted file outside the extraction directory — arbitrary file write on the victim who downloads and extracts the archive. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.63.6.
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 · high confidenceFile Browser versions before 2.63.6 fail to sanitize archive entry names when creating zip/tar downloads. On Linux hosts, filepath.ToSlash leaves Windows-style backslashes untouched. Files with malicious names containing path traversal (e.g., '..\..\etc\passwd') are stored literally, then emitted verbatim into archives. Windows archive extractors interpret backslashes as path separators, allowing extraction outside the target directory—arbitrary file write on victims.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- P
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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.
-
Locate File Browser installationSearch for the filebrowser binary on the system: which filebrowser, or check common locations such as /usr/local/bin/, /usr/bin/, or if running as a Docker container, identify the container image name.Affected if File Browser binary or container is found on the system
-
Determine installed versionRun 'filebrowser --version' or 'filebrowser -v' from the binary location, or inspect the Docker container image tag to obtain the version number.Affected if The version is lower than 2.63.6
-
Check if archive download feature is accessibleReview the File Browser configuration file (commonly config.json) for settings related to archive creation, zip, or tar downloads, or test the UI by selecting multiple files and using a download-as-archive option if available.Affected if Archive download functionality is enabled and accessible to users
-
Identify the host operating system contextDetermine the operating system where File Browser is running and where downloaded archives would typically be extracted (note: the vulnerability affects Linux File Browser servers serving archives to Windows clients).Affected if File Browser runs on Linux and serves archives to Windows users, or archives are extracted on Windows systems
A user is affected if File Browser version is below 2.63.6, the archive download feature is enabled, and archives are created on Linux servers for Windows clients or extracted on Windows systems.
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 · scopedUpgrade File Browser to version 2.63.6 or later. If immediate upgrade is not possible, disable or restrict the archive download feature until the patch can be applied.
2.63.6 or later
- 1. Identify the current File Browser version running in your environment using `filebrowser version` or checking your deployment manifests
- 2. If the current version is below 2.63.6, plan for an upgrade to version 2.63.6 or later
- 3. For container deployments: update the image tag to use version 2.63.6 or the latest stable release (e.g., `filebrowser/filebrowser:v2.63.6` or `:latest)
- 4. For binary installations: download the updated binary from the official GitHub releases and replace the existing installation
- 5. For package manager installations: run the appropriate update command (e.g., `apt update && apt upgrade filebrowser` or equivalent for your package manager)
- 6. After upgrading, verify the running version confirms 2.63.6 or later is installed
- 7. Test the file upload and download-as-archive functionality to confirm the path traversal fix is operational
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-54093 — 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-2026-54093 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