Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-34604 is a high-severity Path Traversal (CWE-22) vulnerability in Ssw Tinacms\/Graphql. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Path Interception (T1034); ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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-2026-34604 is a path traversal vulnerability in the FilesystemBridge component of @tinacms/graphql, part of Tina, a headless content management system. Prior to version 2.2.2, the component performs string-based path containment checks that block basic "../" traversal but fail to resolve symlink or junction targets. If a symlink or junction exists under the allowed content root, paths like "content/posts/pivot/owned.md" are treated as within bounds despite targeting files outside the root, enabling FilesystemBridge methods such as get(), put(), delete(), and glob() to access unintended filesystem locations. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-22 (Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory) and CWE-59 (Improper Link Resolution Before File Access), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L).
A low-privileged remote attacker (PR:L) can exploit this over the network (AV:N) with high attack complexity (AC:H) and no user interaction required. By leveraging an existing or creatable symlink or junction within the permitted content root, the attacker can pivot operations to read, write, delete, or glob files outside the intended directory, achieving high confidentiality impact (C:H) through unauthorized data access, high integrity impact (I:H) via modifications or deletions, and low availability impact (A:L).
The issue has been addressed in Tina version 2.2.2, as detailed in the GitHub security advisory GHSA-g9c2-gf25-3x67 and the patching commit f124eabaca10dac9a4d765c9e4135813c4830955. Security practitioners should upgrade to version 2.2.2 or later to mitigate the vulnerability.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-17965
Vulnerability Data
Tina is a headless content management system. Prior to version 2.2.2, @tinacms/graphql uses string-based path containment checks in FilesystemBridge. That blocks plain ../ traversal, but it does not resolve symlink or junction targets. If a symlink/junction already exists under the…
more
allowed content root, a path like content/posts/pivot/owned.md is still considered "inside" the base even though the real filesystem target can be outside it. As a result, FilesystemBridge.get(), put(), delete(), and glob() can operate on files outside the intended root. This issue has been patched in version 2.2.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.3.2V15.4.2
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require code to validate paths and avoid unsafe link following.
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.