JFrog Artifactory Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory Vulnerability
Exploited since 2026-08-27. No WAF vendor names it yet.
An authenticated user may write data outside the intended Docker cache path under specific remote-repository conditions.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with low privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of integrity.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityThe attack only works when conditions outside the attacker's control line up.High
- Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.Low
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactNo data is exposed.None
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.High
- Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2026-08-12CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-08-27Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.