CVE-2026-18959: InnoShop path traversal

CISO Take

CVE-2026-18959 is a path traversal flaw in InnoShop's file manager controller (FileManagerController::destroyFiles) that lets a low-privileged authenticated user delete arbitrary files outside the intended directory by manipulating the path parameter passed to the panel-api endpoint. The vendor was notified early and has not responded, and a proof-of-concept has already been published on GitHub, but CVSS 5.4 (medium), a near-zero EPSS score of 0.37%, and absence from CISA KEV all indicate low real-world exploitation pressure today. InnoShop is not one of the AI/ML packages we actively track, so the direct blast radius for AI stacks is limited — relevance here is only for organizations running InnoShop as part of a broader AI-enabled storefront or admin tooling where deleted files could include uploaded assets, model artifacts, or configuration used by adjacent AI features. Because no patch exists and vendor response has been silent, teams running InnoShop ≤0.8.2 should restrict file-manager endpoints to trusted admin roles, add server-side path normalization/allow-listing, and watch access logs for anomalous destroyFiles calls against innopacks/restapi/routes/panel-api.php until a fix or virtual patch is available.

Sources: NVD EPSS vuldb.com GitHub

What is the risk?

Exploitability is high in mechanical terms (AC:L, no user interaction, remote) but gated by PR:L — the attacker needs at least a low-privileged authenticated account, which meaningfully reduces the exposed attack surface versus an unauthenticated flaw. Impact is bounded to integrity and availability (C:N/I:L/A:L): the primary consequence is unauthorized deletion of files outside the intended directory, not data exfiltration or code execution. EPSS (0.37%, ~70th percentile) and absence from CISA KEV both suggest this is not being actively mass-exploited, though a public GitHub PoC exists and the vendor's non-response means no timeline for an official fix. Overall this is a medium-risk, low-urgency item unless InnoShop sits on internet-facing infrastructure with broad account self-registration.

How does the attack unfold?

Authenticated Access

Attacker obtains or compromises a low-privileged InnoShop account required to reach the file manager endpoint.

Path Traversal Exploitation

Attacker sends a crafted request to FileManagerController::destroyFiles with a traversal payload to target files outside the intended directory.

AML.T0049

Arbitrary File Deletion

The application deletes the resolved file without validating it stays within the permitted storage path.

Service/Data Disruption

Loss of configuration, log, or asset files causes availability or integrity impact to the InnoShop deployment and any dependent features.

Authenticated Access

Attacker obtains or compromises a low-privileged InnoShop account required to reach the file manager endpoint.

Path Traversal Exploitation

Attacker sends a crafted request to FileManagerController::destroyFiles with a traversal payload to target files outside the intended directory.

AML.T0049

Arbitrary File Deletion

The application deletes the resolved file without validating it stays within the permitted storage path.

Service/Data Disruption

Loss of configuration, log, or asset files causes availability or integrity impact to the InnoShop deployment and any dependent features.

What systems are affected?

Package	Ecosystem	Vulnerable Range	Patched
InnoShop	—	—	No patch

Do you use InnoShop? You're affected.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1

5.4 / 10

EPSS

0.4%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Higher than 31% of all CVEs

Source: EPSS v3 — FIRST.org

Exploitation Status

Exploit Available

Exploitation: MEDIUM

Sophistication

Trivial

Exploitation Confidence

medium

○ CISA SSVC: Public PoC

Composite signal derived from CISA KEV, VulnCheck KEV, CISA SSVC, EPSS, Metasploit, Exploit-DB, trickest/cve, Nuclei templates, and inthewild.io exploitation reports.

What is the attack surface?

AV Network

AC Low

PR Low

UI None

S Unchanged

C None

I Low

A Low

What should I do?

1 step

No official patched version is available and the vendor has not acknowledged the report, so mitigation is workaround-based: restrict access to the file-manager panel-api endpoints to trusted/admin roles only, enforce server-side path canonicalization and reject any input containing '../' or absolute paths before it reaches destroyFiles, and place a WAF or reverse-proxy rule blocking path-traversal sequences on innopacks/restapi/routes/panel-api.php. Monitor application and file-system logs for unexpected deletions or destroyFiles calls from non-admin accounts, and consider isolating the file manager to an internal network or VPN if it does not need to be internet-facing. Track the vendor repository and vuldb.com entry for any unofficial patch or advisory update.

What does CISA's SSVC say?

Decision Track*

Exploitation poc

Automatable No

Technical Impact partial

Source: CISA Vulnrichment (SSVC v2.0). Decision based on the CISA Coordinator decision tree.

How is it classified?

DoS Framework AML.T0049 - Exploit Public-Facing Application

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

This CVE is relevant to:

ISO 42001

A.8 - Operational security controls for AI system infrastructure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-18959?

CVE-2026-18959 is a path traversal flaw in InnoShop's file manager controller (FileManagerController::destroyFiles) that lets a low-privileged authenticated user delete arbitrary files outside the intended directory by manipulating the path parameter passed to the panel-api endpoint. The vendor was notified early and has not responded, and a proof-of-concept has already been published on GitHub, but CVSS 5.4 (medium), a near-zero EPSS score of 0.37%, and absence from CISA KEV all indicate low real-world exploitation pressure today. InnoShop is not one of the AI/ML packages we actively track, so the direct blast radius for AI stacks is limited — relevance here is only for organizations running InnoShop as part of a broader AI-enabled storefront or admin tooling where deleted files could include uploaded assets, model artifacts, or configuration used by adjacent AI features. Because no patch exists and vendor response has been silent, teams running InnoShop ≤0.8.2 should restrict file-manager endpoints to trusted admin roles, add server-side path normalization/allow-listing, and watch access logs for anomalous destroyFiles calls against innopacks/restapi/routes/panel-api.php until a fix or virtual patch is available.

Is CVE-2026-18959 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-18959 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-18959?

No official patched version is available and the vendor has not acknowledged the report, so mitigation is workaround-based: restrict access to the file-manager panel-api endpoints to trusted/admin roles only, enforce server-side path canonicalization and reject any input containing '../' or absolute paths before it reaches destroyFiles, and place a WAF or reverse-proxy rule blocking path-traversal sequences on innopacks/restapi/routes/panel-api.php. Monitor application and file-system logs for unexpected deletions or destroyFiles calls from non-admin accounts, and consider isolating the file manager to an internal network or VPN if it does not need to be internet-facing. Track the vendor repository and vuldb.com entry for any unofficial patch or advisory update.

What systems are affected by CVE-2026-18959?

This vulnerability affects the following AI/ML architecture patterns: ml_ui admin/file-management interfaces (indirect, product not in tracked AI package list).

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-18959?

CVE-2026-18959 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.4 (MEDIUM). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.37%.

What is the AI security impact?

Affected AI Architectures

ml_ui admin/file-management interfaces (indirect, product not in tracked AI package list)

MITRE ATLAS Techniques

AML.T0049 Exploit Public-Facing Application

Compliance Controls Affected

ISO 42001: A.8

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

A flaw has been found in yushine InnoShop up to 0.8.2. Affected by this issue is the function FileManagerController::destroyFiles of the file innopacks/restapi/routes/panel-api.php of the component Files Endpoint. This manipulation causes path traversal. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Exploitation Scenario

An attacker registers or compromises a low-privileged InnoShop account (e.g., a vendor or staff role) and sends a crafted request to the destroyFiles endpoint with a path-traversal payload (such as '../../') in the file path parameter. Because the endpoint does not validate that the resolved path stays within the intended storage directory, the server deletes a file outside that boundary — potentially a configuration file, log, or unrelated asset — causing data loss or service disruption. Repeated or targeted use could be used to sabotage a specific tenant's data or remove files needed by adjacent application features.

Weaknesses (CWE)

CWE-22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

CWE-22 — Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'): The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.

[Implementation] 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, denylis
[Architecture and Design] For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Source: MITRE CWE corpus.