CVE Intelligence
Medium File handling

CVE-2026-71313 — rclone: Local Encoding Path Traversal

rclone is a command-line program to sync files and directories to and from different cloud storage providers. From v1.51.0 until v1.75.0, the local backend in backend/local/local.go relies on the configurable filename encoder to prevent remote filename data from becoming operating-system path syntax, so a local destination using Slash, None, Raw, or on Windows an encoding that preserves backslash can decode a standard-encoded fullwidth dot-dot component or native backslash form into an actual parent-directory component before filepath.Join resolves it outside the configured local root, allowing an attacker-controlled source object to create or overwrite files outside the selected destination directory as the rclone process. This issue is fixed in v1.75.0.

Published Aug 5, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: GitHub_M

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.3% (30-day exploitation probability)+3
  • Technical severity (medium)+3
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.3%
ahead of 21% of scored CVEs · Oct 15, 2026
Affects
Rclone
Rclone
CVSS base
6.9
Medium · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Rclone Rclone).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
  5. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (file handling), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Rclone Rclone version >= 1.51.0, < 1.75.0 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
Low

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
6.9 CVSS 3.1 Medium 1.6 4.7 security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
6.9 CVSS 3.1 Medium — — GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:L (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-22 · Path Traversal

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Monitor file creation in web directories and paths with traversal sequences (../).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSfile integrity (FIM)endpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · rclone/rclone
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 6.9
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Awaiting Analysis
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Aug 5, 2026 · GitHub_M

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Rclone
every CVE for this vendor
File handling
same class
CWE-22
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • Low CVE-2026-93986 rclone before 1.75.1 Path Traversal via Directory Listing Names 26d
  • Low CVE-2026-93987 rclone serve docker Path Traversal via Volume Name 26d
  • Critical CVE-2026-88044 rclone: RC per-server auth-proxy bypass Sep 10, 2026
  • Medium CVE-2026-88046 rclone: source object names can escape the configured root on upload Sep 10, 2026
  • High CVE-2026-88045 rclone: S3 multipart declared-length memory exhaustion Sep 10, 2026
  • Critical CVE-2026-88018 rclone serve s3: --auth-proxy without --auth-key authenticates nobody - full SigV4 signature bypass Sep 10, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-71313 is "rclone: Local Encoding Path Traversal", rated Medium. It affects Rclone (Rclone); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.9 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.30% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.