Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-42597 is a medium-severity External Control of File Name or Path (CWE-73) vulnerability in Thecodingmachine Gotenberg. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Data from Local System (T1005); ranked at the 20th 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-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-30317
Vulnerability Data
Gotenberg is a Docker-powered stateless API for PDF files. Prior to 8.32.0, the /forms/chromium/convert/url and /forms/chromium/screenshot/url routes accept url=file:///tmp/... from anonymous callers. The default Chromium deny-list intentionally exempts file:///tmp/ so HTML/Markdown routes can load their own request-local assets, and those…
more
routes apply a per-request AllowedFilePrefixes guard to scope the read. The URL routes never set AllowedFilePrefixes, so the scope guard silently skips. Alice enumerates /tmp/, walks Gotenberg's per-request working directories, and reads the raw source files of other in-flight conversions as rendered PDF output. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.32.0.
- 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
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly rejects or sanitizes untrusted path strings before they reach filesystem operations.
Enforces authorization checks on the actual resource accessed, blocking unauthorized files even when a malicious path is supplied.
Least-privilege limits the set of files or directories any subject can affect, shrinking the blast radius of a path-control flaw.
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 include input validation and path sanitization that eliminate this weakness.
Least-privilege file authorization directly limits damage from externally controlled paths.
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.
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 can detect path-traversal issues but does not itself implement preventive controls.
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 mandates input validation and path-handling controls that directly prevent external file/path manipulation.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against untrusted input influencing file operations.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe path construction but do not prescribe concrete file-name controls.
Secure coding standards require canonicalization, allow-listing, and bounds checks on file paths, directly eliminating CWE-73.