BlackTreeCVE Intelligencemasci · banks
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-98RR-GVC9-3CJH ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Structured product status and remediation from the issuing vendor. Product-state explanations are always visible; large lists can be searched or downloaded.
The vendor explicitly identifies these products as affected by this CVE.
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 4 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by productBanks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a simple template language. In versions prior to 2.4.4, all four media filters (image, audio, video, document) in banks accept untrusted user input as file paths via Path(value) and pass them directly to open(file_path, "rb") without any path sanitization, canonicalization, or directory restriction. An attacker who controls template variables passed to a banks Prompt can use path traversal (../) to read arbitrary files accessible to the Python process—including .env files, SSH keys, cloud credentials, source code, /etc/passwd, and /etc/shadow—with the content returned base64-encoded in the rendered prompt output, making exfiltration trivial. This is particularly dangerous for applications that use banks to process user-provided template variables before sending prompts to an LLM. This issue has been fixed in version 2.4.4.
Banks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a simple template language. In versions prior to 2.4.4, all four media filters (image, audio, video, document) in banks accept untrusted user input as file paths via Path(value) and pass them directly to open(file_path, "rb") without any path sanitization, canonicalization, or directory restriction. An attacker who controls template variables passed to a banks Prompt can use path traversal (../) to read arbitrary files accessible to the Python process—including .env files, SSH keys, cloud credentials, source code, /etc/passwd, and /etc/shadow—with the content returned base64-encoded in the rendered prompt output, making exfiltration trivial. This is particularly dangerous for applications that use banks to process user-provided template variables before sending prompts to an LLM. This issue has been fixed in version 2.4.4.
Attacker-controlled path data is not constrained to the intended directory before the application accesses a file.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
Banks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a simple template language. In versions prior to 2.4.4, all four media filters (image, audio, video, document) in banks accept untrusted user input as file paths via Path(value) and pass them directly to open(file_path, "rb") without any path sanitization, canonicalization, or directory restriction. An attacker who controls template variables passed to a banks Prompt can use path traversal (../) to read arbitrary files accessible to the Python process—including .env files, SSH keys, cloud credentials, source code, /etc/passwd, and /etc/shadow—with the content returned base64-encoded in the rendered prompt output, making exfiltration trivial. This is particularly dangerous for applications that use banks to process user-provided template variables before sending prompts to an LLM. This issue has been fixed in version 2.4.4.
Attacker-controlled path data is not constrained to the intended directory before the application accesses a file.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may obtain information outside the intended access boundary.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.
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.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 30 Jul 2026 · Last source change 30 Jul 2026, 17:38 UTC · CWE-22 · Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.