Mitel MiVoice Office 400: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory
CVE-2026-104805 is a high-severity improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory vulnerability in Mitel MiVoice Office 400 from Mitel, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.5 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with administrator privileges, without any action from a user. Affected Mitel MiVoice Office 400 versions: 11.0.96.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.22% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of Mitel MiVoice Office 400 you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mitel | Mitel MiVoice Office 400 | 11.0.96.0 | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- HighAdministrator-level access is required first.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:Y/R:U/V:D/RE:M/U:Amber. Scored by CNA (ncsc.ch).
Official description
DigitalCanion has discovered a vulnerability in the backup restoration functionality that allows an attacker with access to the configured backup repository to introduce arbitrary files into the system during restoration. The specific flaw exists within the backup restoration mechanism, which fails to properly validate the paths, file types, integrity, and authenticity of files contained within a restored TGZ archive. The application does not perform file-signature verification before extracting the archive, allowing a specially crafted backup to contain attacker-controlled files. An attacker with access to the backup SFTP or other configured repository can therefore provide a malicious TGZ archive that, when restored by the system, may place arbitrary files on the underlying Linux system. Depending on the location and permissions of the extracted files, this behavior can potentially be leveraged to achieve arbitrary code execution with root privileges and compromise the underlying virtual machine. The absence of enforced backup passwords further reduces the protection provided by the backup mechanism and may facilitate unauthorized access to the repository.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory
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.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- 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.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth.
More Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory vulnerabilities (CWE-22)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in Mitel MiVoice Office 400
- 8.4 High severity
- 8.4 High severity
- 8.4 High severity
- 8.4 High severity
Recent Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.2 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.