CVE-2026-27557
CVE-2026-27557 — Path Traversal in /index.php/view_uploaded_iodd_file
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit a path traversal vulnerability in the /index.php/view_uploaded_iodd_file endpoint allowing the SSH server's private keys to be read.
Published Updated Sources: NVD, Pepperl+Fuchs (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI
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%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
7.5
high
Remediation
The vendor's own words where we have them.
Upgrade ICE2-8IOL1-G65L-V1D to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.
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.
- Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
- 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.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE2-8IOL1-G65L-V1D | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE2-8IOL-G65L-V1D | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE2-8IOL-K45P-RJ45 | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE2-8IOL-K45S-RJ45 | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE3-8IOL1-G65L-V1D | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE3-8IOL-G65L-V1D | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE3-8IOL-G65L-V1D-Y | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE3-8IOL-K45P-RJ45 | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Pepperl+Fuchs | ICE3-8IOL-K45S-RJ45 | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Phoenix Contact | IOL MA8 PN DI8 | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Phoenix Contact | IOL MA8 EIP DI8 | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
| Carlo Gavazzi Automation | YL212CEI8M1IO | 1.0.0 to < 1.7.4 | Vulnerable |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Availability
None
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Scope
Unchanged
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Vector
Network
Privileges Req
None
User Interaction
None
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 3.1 | high | 3.9 | 3.6 | NVD, Pepperl+Fuchs (CNA) |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
CWE-35 · Path Traversal: '.../...//'
- Read Files or Directories
- Modify Files or Directories::
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-35
Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.
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 /index.php/view_uploaded_iodd_file.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable ICE2-8IOL1-G65L-V1D, ICE2-8IOL-G65L-V1D, ICE2-8IOL-K45P-RJ45, ICE2-8IOL-K45S-RJ45, ICE3-8IOL1-G65L-V1D, ICE3-8IOL-G65L-V1D, ICE3-8IOL-G65L-V1D-Y, ICE3-8IOL-K45P-RJ45, ICE3-8IOL-K45S-RJ45, IOL MA8 PN DI8, IOL MA8 EIP DI8, YL212CEI8M1IO, YN115CEI8RPIO, YL212CPN8M1IO, YN115CPN8RPIO.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 7.5 (AV:N)
Sep 16, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Sep 16, 2026 · NVD
CVE published by MITRE.
Sep 16, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
Source activity
Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.
- 1×2 times mentioned on 1 Telegram channelsSep 16, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
3 on the record
- www.certvde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2026-014/
Vendor Advisory
- www.certvde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2026-027/
Vendor Advisory
- www.certvde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2026-028/
Vendor Advisory
Elsewhere on this site
- Pepperl+Fuchsevery CVE for this vendor
- Phoenix Contactevery CVE for this vendor
- Carlo Gavazzi Automationevery CVE for this vendor
- Path Traversalsame class
- CWE-35other pages naming this weakness
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.
Answered from this record1
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-27557 is Path Traversal in /index.php/view_uploaded_iodd_file, a high vulnerability affecting ICE2-8IOL1-G65L-V1D, ICE2-8IOL-G65L-V1D, ICE2-8IOL-K45P-RJ45, ICE2-8IOL-K45S-RJ45, ICE3-8IOL1-G65L-V1D, ICE3-8IOL-G65L-V1D, ICE3-8IOL-G65L-V1D-Y, ICE3-8IOL-K45P-RJ45, ICE3-8IOL-K45S-RJ45, IOL MA8 PN DI8, IOL MA8 EIP DI8, YL212CEI8M1IO, YN115CEI8RPIO, YL212CPN8M1IO, YN115CPN8RPIO from Pepperl+Fuchs, Phoenix Contact, Carlo Gavazzi Automation. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-27557. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-27557. 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 7.5 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% 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.