CVE-2026-70626

CVE-2026-70626 is a high-severity security vulnerability in nltk (pip), affecting versions <= 3.9.3. It is fixed in 3.9.4.

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

NLTK: Symlink escape in CorpusReader allows arbitrary local file read outside the corpus root

nltk.corpus.reader.api.CorpusReader.open() can be used to read files outside the intended corpus root via a symlink placed inside that root. Although NLTK blocks absolute paths and .. traversal, the current boundary check is only lexical and does not account for symlink resolution. This leads to an arbitrary local file read / filesystem sandbox bypass for applications that rely on CorpusReader or FileSystemPathPointer to restrict file access.

Details

The vulnerable flow is:

  • nltk/corpus/reader/api.py:222

    • CorpusReader.open() blocks absolute paths and .., then calls self._root.join(file).open()

  • nltk/data.py:398

    • FileSystemPathPointer.join() joins the requested file ID and checks whether the resulting path still appears to remain under the configured root

The problem is that the check is based on the lexical path after os.path.normpath(), not on the resolved path after following symlinks.

Current behavior:

  1. CorpusReader.open() rejects:
    • absolute paths
    • .. path traversal
  2. FileSystemPathPointer.join() computes:
    • joined = os.path.normpath(os.path.join(self._path, fileid))
    • root = os.path.normpath(self._path)
  3. It allows the access if joined starts with root

This misses the case where a path stays inside the root lexically, but resolves outside the root via a symlink already present under the allowed directory.

Example:

JOINED=/tmp/nltk-root/link/secret.txt
REALPATH=/tmp/outside/secret.txt

JOINED still appears to be inside the root, but REALPATH is outside it.

This is distinct from simple ../ traversal:

  • the file ID is not absolute
  • the file ID does not contain ..
  • the escape only happens after filesystem resolution of a symlink under the allowed root

PoC

Reproduced in an isolated Docker sandbox using the local nltk clone.

Minimal Python PoC:

import os
import tempfile
from nltk.corpus.reader.api import CorpusReader

root = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="nltk-root-")
outside_dir = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="nltk-out-")
outside_file = os.path.join(outside_dir, "secret.txt")

with open(outside_file, "w") as f:
    f.write("secret-data")

os.symlink(outside_dir, os.path.join(root, "link"))

corpus = CorpusReader(root, ["link/secret.txt"])
with corpus.open("link/secret.txt") as f:
    print(f.read())

Observed result:

secret-data

Docker re-test output:

ROOT=/tmp/nltk-root-jjxay3if
OUTSIDE_DIR=/tmp/nltk-out-1kef36e0
JOINED=/tmp/nltk-root-jjxay3if/link/secret.txt
REALPATH=/tmp/nltk-out-1kef36e0/secret.txt
READ_OK=secret-data
INSIDE_ROOT=True
REAL_INSIDE_ROOT=False

Additional impact validation using a system file:

ROOT=/tmp/nltk-root-_h5x4m19
JOINED=/tmp/nltk-root-_h5x4m19/hostfile
REALPATH=/etc/hostname
HOSTNAME_READ=48dafb244af3
INSIDE_ROOT=True
REAL_INSIDE_ROOT=False

This shows that the issue is not limited to attacker-created files outside the root; it can also read existing system files that are readable by the application user.

Impact

This is an arbitrary local file read / symlink escape issue.

Who is impacted:

  • applications that accept attacker-controlled corpus directories, extracted datasets, or package contents
  • applications that rely on NLTK corpus readers as a trust boundary for file access
  • any deployment where an attacker can place or influence files inside the allowed corpus root

Practical impact includes disclosure of:

  • application secrets stored on disk
  • local configuration files
  • private datasets
  • process-exposed files such as /proc/self/environ
  • system files readable by the running user

The issue is best described as a filesystem sandbox bypass caused by improper link resolution before file access.

CVE-2026-70626 has a CVSS score of 6.2 (High). The vector is requires local access, 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 (3.9.4); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Affected versions

nltk (<= 3.9.3)

Security releases

nltk → 3.9.4 (pip)

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

Upgrade nltk to 3.9.4 or later to resolve this vulnerability.

Kodem Kai can prioritize this vulnerability in your dependency tree and generate a fix recommendation.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is CVE-2026-70626? CVE-2026-70626 is a high-severity security vulnerability in nltk (pip), affecting versions <= 3.9.3. It is fixed in 3.9.4.
  2. How severe is CVE-2026-70626? CVE-2026-70626 has a CVSS score of 6.2 (High). 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 nltk are affected by CVE-2026-70626? nltk (pip) versions <= 3.9.3 is affected.
  4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-70626? Yes. CVE-2026-70626 is fixed in 3.9.4. Upgrade to this version or later.
  5. Is CVE-2026-70626 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-70626 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-2026-70626 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-2026-70626? Upgrade nltk to 3.9.4 or later.

Stop the waste.
Protect your environment with Kodem.

Get a personalized demo
Get a personalized demo