Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-47883 is a critical-severity Absolute Path Traversal (CWE-36) vulnerability in Openrefine Butterfly. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 26% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-2918
Vulnerability Data
The OpenRefine fork of the MIT Simile Butterfly server is a modular web application framework. The Butterfly framework uses the `java.net.URL` class to refer to (what are expected to be) local resource files, like images or templates. This works: "opening…
more
a connection" to these URLs opens the local file. However, prior to version 1.2.6, if a `file:/` URL is directly given where a relative path (resource name) is expected, this is also accepted in some code paths; the app then fetches the file, from a remote machine if indicated, and uses it as if it was a trusted part of the app's codebase. This leads to multiple weaknesses and potential weaknesses. An attacker that has network access to the application could use it to gain access to files, either on the the server's filesystem (path traversal) or shared by nearby machines (server-side request forgery with e.g. SMB). An attacker that can lead or redirect a user to a crafted URL belonging to the app could cause arbitrary attacker-controlled JavaScript to be loaded in the victim's browser (cross-site scripting). If an app is written in such a way that an attacker can influence the resource name used for a template, that attacker could cause the app to fetch and execute an attacker-controlled template (remote code execution). Version 1.2.6 contains a patch.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2V1.3.6V1.5.3V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces the intended directory access authorizations that path traversal would otherwise bypass.
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly stops construction of absolute paths from untrusted data before they reach file operations.
Least privilege reduces the impact of any unauthorized file access obtained via traversal.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and path sanitization that prevent absolute path traversal.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
Patching/maintenance can remediate known path-traversal flaws in deployed software (partial prevention of exploitability) but does nothing to stop the coding defect from being introduced in the first place.
PR.AA-05 defines and reviews access policies but does not address code-level pathname neutralization, so neither direction prevents CWE-22.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect absolute path traversal via static analysis and fuzzing.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.
Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and path-handling requirements that reduce absolute path traversal risk.
Application security requirements typically mandate controls against path traversal in file-access functions.
Secure architecture principles call for canonicalization and sandboxing that limit absolute path traversal.
Secure coding standards directly require neutralization of absolute path sequences in pathname construction.