CVE-2026-41433
Path Traversal in Opentelemetry Ebpf Instrumentation 0.4.0 – 0.8.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-41433 is a high-severity Path Traversal (CWE-22) vulnerability in Opentelemetry Opentelemetry Ebpf Instrumentation. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Path Interception (T1034); ranked at the 9th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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 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-2026-41433 affects OpenTelemetry eBPF Instrumentation, an eBPF-based tool for instrumentation adhering to the OpenTelemetry standard. Versions from 0.4.0 up to but not including 0.8.0 contain a flaw in the Java agent injection path. This vulnerability arises because the injector trusts the TMPDIR environment variable from the target Java process and employs unsafe file creation semantics, permitting filesystem boundary escapes and symlink-based file clobbering. It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.4 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H) and is associated with CWE-22 (Path Traversal) and CWE-59 (Symbolic Link Following).
A local attacker with low privileges (PR:L) who controls a Java workload can exploit this issue when Java injection is enabled and the OpenTelemetry eBPF Instrumentation (OBI) runs with elevated privileges on the host. By manipulating TMPDIR, the attacker can overwrite arbitrary files on the host filesystem, achieving high impact on integrity (I:H) and availability (A:H) with a changed scope (S:C). No user interaction is required (UI:N), and the low attack complexity (AC:L) makes exploitation straightforward in containerized or multi-tenant environments where Java applications run alongside privileged monitoring agents.
The vulnerability is addressed in version 0.8.0 of OpenTelemetry eBPF Instrumentation, as detailed in the project's release notes and GitHub security advisory GHSA-8gmg-3w2q-65f4. Security practitioners should upgrade to 0.8.0 or later, disable Java injection if unnecessary, and ensure OBI does not run with excessive privileges. Review of host filesystem access controls and monitoring for suspicious file modifications in temporary directories is also recommended.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25620
Vulnerability Data
OpenTelemetry eBPF Instrumentation provides eBPF instrumentation based on the OpenTelemetry standard. From 0.4.0 to before 0.8.0, a flaw in the Java agent injection path allows a local attacker controlling a Java workload to overwrite arbitrary host files when Java injection…
more
is enabled and OBI is running with elevated privileges. The injector trusted TMPDIR from the target process and used unsafe file creation semantics, enabling both filesystem boundary escape and symlink-based file clobbering. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.8.0.
- 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.