VSFF6: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory
CVE-2026-95378 is a high-severity improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory vulnerability in VSFF6 from Zenitel, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.6 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with administrator privileges, without any action from a user. The record lists version 10.1.3.0 as the first without the flaw, so updating VSFF6 to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.33% 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
- Update VSFF6 to 10.1.3.0 or a later version.
- Update VSFF8 to 10.1.3.0 or a later version.
- Update VSFF8MP to 10.1.3.0 or a later version.
- Read the advisory on zenitel.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zenitel | VSFF6 | 10.0.3.0 up to, but not including, 10.1.3.0 | 10.1.3.0 |
| Zenitel | VSFF8 | 10.0.3.0 up to, but not including, 10.1.3.0 | 10.1.3.0 |
| Zenitel | VSFF8MP | 10.0.3.0 up to, but not including, 10.1.3.0 | 10.1.3.0 |
| Zenitel | VSFF8MN | 10.0.3.0 up to, but not including, 10.1.3.0 | 10.1.3.0 |
| Zenitel | VSFT | 10.0.3.0 up to, but not including, 10.1.3.0 | 10.1.3.0 |
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)
- LowLimited loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- LowLimited loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- LowLimited 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:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:X/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:P/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X. Scored by CNA.
Official description
Path traversal in the certificate upload endpoint (/api/certificate/upload) of the turbineweb web interface in Zenitel VSFF6, VSFF8, VSFF8MP, VSFF8MN, and VSFT devices with software versions from 10.0.3.0 before 10.1.3.0 allows authenticated administrators to write arbitrary files as root via a crafted filename parameter in a multipart upload request when the type field is set to any value other than https_certificate. In that case, both path validation and certificate content validation are skipped. This can be escalated to arbitrary code execution as root, for example by overwriting startup scripts or planting SSH keys.
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).
References
Other vulnerabilities in VSFF6
- 7.0 High severity
- 9.4 Critical severity
Recent Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 7.7 High severity
- 7.0 High severity
- 7.0 High severity
- 8.1 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.