CVE-2026-93013

MEDIUM
Published September 17, 2026

RAGFlow through 0.27.2 contains a path traversal vulnerability in the dev_insert_chunks_from_file and dev_insert_metadata_from_file endpoints that allows authenticated attackers to read arbitrary files by supplying absolute file paths in the file_path parameter. Attackers with valid access tokens...

Full CISO analysis pending enrichment.

How severe is it?

CVSS 3.1
4.3 / 10
EPSS
0.3%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Higher than 29% of all CVEs
Exploitation Status
No known exploitation
Sophistication
N/A

What is the attack surface?

AV AC PR UI S C I A
AV Network
AC Low
PR Low
UI None
S Unchanged
C Low
I None
A None

What should I do?

No patch available

Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.

Which compliance frameworks are affected?

Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CVE-2026-93013?

RAGFlow through 0.27.2 contains a path traversal vulnerability in the dev_insert_chunks_from_file and dev_insert_metadata_from_file endpoints that allows authenticated attackers to read arbitrary files by supplying absolute file paths in the file_path parameter. Attackers with valid access tokens can exploit missing path validation to read any file accessible to the service, with disclosure limited to files matching expected JSON structures that are then written to datasets.

Is CVE-2026-93013 actively exploited?

No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-93013 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.

How to fix CVE-2026-93013?

No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.

What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-93013?

CVE-2026-93013 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 4.3 (MEDIUM). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.35%.

What are the technical details?

Original Advisory

RAGFlow through 0.27.2 contains a path traversal vulnerability in the dev_insert_chunks_from_file and dev_insert_metadata_from_file endpoints that allows authenticated attackers to read arbitrary files by supplying absolute file paths in the file_path parameter. Attackers with valid access tokens can exploit missing path validation to read any file accessible to the service, with disclosure limited to files matching expected JSON structures that are then written to datasets.

Weaknesses (CWE)

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.

CVSS Vector

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

Timeline

Published
September 17, 2026
Last Modified
September 17, 2026
First Seen
September 17, 2026