CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
CISA KEVhighPath Traversalpublic exploit

CVE-2025-6218

CVE-2025-6218 — RARLAB WinRAR Directory Traversal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

RARLAB WinRAR Directory Traversal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of RARLAB WinRAR. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the handling of file paths within archive files. A crafted file path can cause the process to traverse to unintended directories. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current user. Was ZDI-CAN-27198.

Published Updated Sources: NVD, RARLAB (CNA), CISA, FIRST EPSS, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Confirmed

CISA KEV, listed Dec 9, 2025

EPSS

90%

ahead of 99.8% of scored CVEs

Affects

RARLAB

WinRAR

CVSS base

7.8

high

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

Active

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade WinRAR to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

CISA required action

Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Federal deadline Dec 30, 2025 — passed 258 days ago

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

  • Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
  • Treat as emergency remediation because CISA KEV status is present.
  • Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatus
RARLABWinRAR7.11 (64-bit)Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
7.8CVSS 3.0high1.85.9Trend Micro (ZDI) (CNA), RARLAB (CNA)

CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

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

  • Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
  • Modify Files or Directories
  • Read Files or Directories
  • DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Mitigation: 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.

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-22Path Traversal

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-126 · Path TraversalCAPEC-76 · Manipulating Web Input to File System CallsCAPEC-79 · Using Slashes in Alternate EncodingCAPEC-64 · Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation LogicCAPEC-78 · Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding

CISA KEV details

CISA lists a CVE here once it has evidence of exploitation against real targets.

Listed

Dec 9, 2025

Federal deadline

Dec 30, 2025

passed 258 days ago

Ransomware use

Unknown

CISA records ransomware use only for campaigns it has confirmed, so “Unknown” means unrecorded, not ruled out. The deadline binds US federal agencies; for everyone else it is a date to argue against.

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

8

3 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Exploit entries

6

Exploit-DB and CTI exploit indexes

Social mentions

Posts naming this CVE. Attention, not evidence of exploitation — it spikes on disclosure and decays whether or not anything is exploited.

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 14 public PoC repositories were reported.

Groups associated with this CVE

Groups reported in connection with this vulnerability. A reported association, not a confirmed observation of that group using it — and not scoped to any sector or campaign.

RomComVoid RabisuOpal SleetAPT37Dropping Elephant
SOCRadar21 more threat groups on this CVEShowing 5 of 26 · Attribution, campaigns and the malware each one runsUnlock free
  • ip64.7.198.1242

    Threatview.io Feeds · Nov 10, 2025

  • ip136.0.141.13879

    AbuseIPDB Hourly Update · Jan 5, 2026

  • ip157.20.182.7548

    Maltrail Malware Feeds · Nov 15, 2025

  • hash2a8ea9f1ad8936fb302243faa64b91c5767df411923715cbdb1a869e3bfd7e6d93

    MalwareBazaar Feeds · Apr 9, 2026

  • hash4528d5cf07bf0e1ac769b390236cab1bf34b938c93

    MalwareBazaar Feeds · Apr 9, 2026

SOCRadar5 more indicators on this CVEShowing 5 of 10 · Hashes, addresses and domains from a live threat exchangeUnlock free

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

  1. 2026
  2. Added · CVSS 3.1 7.8 (AV:L)

    Jun 17, 2026 · NVD

  3. 2025
  4. Added to CISA KEV catalog

    Dec 9, 2025 · CISA

  5. Initial · CVE published

    Jun 21, 2025 · NVD

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

  • 17×SVRS was changedJan 27, 2026 – Mar 5, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
  • 11×TweetsFeb 3, 2026 – Aug 9, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
  • TelegramMar 10, 2026 – Mar 11, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

8 on the record

Coverage

15 stories from the feeds we poll

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • Only the 5 indicator(s) reported for this CVE are available; no packet-level or host-forensic artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-6218 is RARLAB WinRAR Directory Traversal Remote Code Execution Vulnerability, a high vulnerability affecting WinRAR from RARLAB. The current evidence lists it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Yes: CISA KEV signal present. Public exploit evidence is: 14 public PoC repositories reported; 3 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7.8 describes technical severity, while EPSS 90% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.