CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-28414

Absolute Path Traversal

Published: Feb 27, 2026 | Modified: Mar 05, 2026
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

Gradio is an open-source Python package designed for quick prototyping. Prior to version 6.7, Gradio apps running on Window with Python 3.13+ are vulnerable to an absolute path traversal issue that enables unauthenticated attackers to read arbitrary files from the file system. Python 3.13+ changed the definition of os.path.isabs so that root-relative paths like /windows/win.ini on Windows are no longer considered absolute paths, resulting in a vulnerability in Gradios logic for joining paths safely. This can be exploited by unauthenticated attackers to read arbitrary files from the Gradio server, even when Gradio is set up with authentication. Version 6.7 fixes the issue.

Weakness

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as “/abs/path” that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
GradioGradio_project*6.7.0 (excluding)

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single “.” character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as “/” to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.
  • Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering “/” is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of “" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if “../” sequences are removed from the “…/…//” string in a sequential fashion, two instances of “../” would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the “../” string.

References