CVE-2026-10595
CVE-2026-10595 — Path Traversal Vulnerability in parisneo/lollms
A path traversal vulnerability exists in parisneo/lollms version 2.1.0, specifically in the SPA catch-all route implemented in `backend/routers/ui.py`. The vulnerability arises from the improper handling of user-controlled path input, which is directly joined into a filesystem path without sanitization or containment checks. URL-encoded dot-dot sequences (`%2e%2e`) bypass Starlette's built-in path normalization and are resolved by Python's `pathlib`, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to read arbitrary files on the server. This issue has been resolved in version 3.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, @huntr_ai
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
7.5
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.
Exploitation
PoC
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.0 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-23
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /lollms, /routers/ui.py.
References
2 on the record
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.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware 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.