Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-22871 is a high-severity Path Traversal (CWE-22) vulnerability in Datadoghq Guarddog. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 40% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-22871 is a path traversal vulnerability (CWE-22) in the safe_extract() function of GuardDog, a CLI tool designed to identify malicious PyPI packages. Versions of GuardDog prior to 2.7.1 are affected, allowing malicious PyPI packages to write arbitrary files outside the intended extraction directory during analysis. This flaw enables arbitrary file overwrite and remote code execution on systems running the vulnerable GuardDog instance, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by any unauthenticated attacker with network access to a system running vulnerable GuardDog. By crafting a malicious PyPI package that triggers the path traversal in safe_extract(), the attacker can overwrite critical files or execute arbitrary code on the target system when GuardDog scans the package. No user interaction or privileges are required, making it highly exploitable in environments where GuardDog is used for automated PyPI package scanning.
The GuardDog security advisory (GHSA-xg9w-vg3g-6m68) and the fixing commit (9aa6a725b2c71d537d3c18d1c15621395ebb879c) confirm that the issue is resolved in version 2.7.1. Security practitioners should update to GuardDog 2.7.1 or later to mitigate the vulnerability.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-2012
Vulnerability Data
GuardDog is a CLI tool to identify malicious PyPI packages. Prior to 2.7.1, there is a path traversal vulnerability exists in GuardDog's safe_extract() function that allows malicious PyPI packages to write arbitrary files outside the intended extraction directory, leading to…
more
Arbitrary File Overwrite and Remote Code Execution on systems running GuardDog. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.7.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces the intended directory access authorizations that path traversal would otherwise bypass.
Input validation directly neutralizes special path elements before pathname construction occurs.
Least privilege reduces the impact of any unauthorized file access obtained via traversal.
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.
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 catches path traversal via static/dynamic analysis.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and path sanitization that directly prevent path traversal.
Application security requirements include rules for safe file handling and canonicalization.
Secure architecture principles require least-privilege file access and directory isolation.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe path construction and mandate safe APIs.
Information access restriction limits which files an application may read or write.