CVE 5.6 MEDIUM

Path Traversal in build/packages/packages.toml Allows Arbitrary Directory Deletion_CVE-2026-43965

5.6 / 10
MEDIUM
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Description

Path traversal vulnerability in Gleam's dependency management allows arbitrary directory deletion via malicious build/packages/packages.toml content.

Package keys read from build/packages/packages.toml by LocalPackages::read_from_disc are passed without validation to paths.build_packages_package(), which constructs a filesystem path by joining the project build directory with the attacker-controlled key. The resulting path is then passed to fs::delete_directory (which calls remove_dir_all). No check is performed to ensure the path remains within the intended build/packages/ directory. Both absolute paths and relative traversal sequences (e.g. ../) are accepted as package keys, allowing deletion of arbitrary directories.

An attacker who can cause a victim to run gleam deps download on a project containing a malicious build/packages/packages.toml (e.g. by committing the normally-gitignored file to a repository) can cause arbitrary directories on the victim's system to be recursively deleted.

This issue affects Gleam from 0.18.0-rc1 until 1.17.0.

Basic Information

ID CVE-2026-43965
Source EEF
Published Jun 2, 2026 at 13:41

Affected Product

Vendor Gleam
Product Gleam
Version 0.18.0-rc1
Affected Versions Gleam Gleam 0.18.0-rc1
Gleam Gleam 0.18.0-rc1
Gleam Gleam ed7aec0484f10d60978b63788c8a6497590855ab
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-elixir
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-erlang
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-node
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-node-slim
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-elixir-slim
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-erlang-slim
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-erlang-alpine
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-elixir-alpine
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-node-alpine
Gleam Gleam v0.18.0-rc1-scratch

CWE Classification

References

💭 Join the Security Discussion

🔒 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

⚠️ Please be respectful and constructive in your comments. Security discussions should remain professional.