CVE
Portabase: Unauthenticated path traversal in TUS webhook overwrites AES-256-GCM master key
Affects self-hosted Portabase Community Edition up to and including 1.21.1 when the instance is reachable from untrusted networks. Fixed in 1.21.2.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- Fixed in 1.21.2
- Who is exposed
- Not reported
Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 1.21.2.
- Last modified
- Whether it needs action now or is a reference record, by fixed rules, with why. Last checked is when cve.now last re-read it.What do these mean? →
- Reference
- Last checked
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 27/100 · provisional
- How many real-world setups can hit the bug, from the vendor's advisory and CISA data. It does not know your setup.What do these mean? →
- Unclear
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
Summary
Portabase, a database backup and restore tool, has an unauthenticated path traversal flaw in its TUS upload webhook handler that lets a remote attacker, without logging in, overwrite arbitrary files in the private data directory, including the AES-256-GCM master key.
Read the original description
Portabase is a database backup and restore tool for PostgreSQL, MySQL, MsSQL, MariaDB, Firebird SQL, SQLite, MongoDB, Redis, Files and Docker Volume. Prior to version 1.21.2, a path traversal in the TUS upload webhook handler (app/api/tus/hooks/route.ts) allowed an unauthenticated attacker to overwrite arbitrary files under the private data directory, including /data/private/keys/master_key.bin (the AES-256-GCM master key). This issue has been patched in version 1.21.2.
Who should check
Teams running self-hosted Portabase Community Edition, up to and including 1.21.1, reachable from untrusted networks.
Not fixed by: Blocking the hook at the proxy is only a workaround; upgrading to 1.21.2 is required.
Read the source excerpt
“any self-hosted Portabase Community Edition instance up to and including 1.21.1”
cve.now Index
- Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
- Exposure17/25No login or user action needed, reachable over the network without a login · Unknown: Advisories don't say whether default setups are affected
- Reach?/20Unknown. No tracked technology or package matched
- Severity9.8/10CVSS 9.8
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 72 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 67 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
- Would score about 32 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed
What to do
Upgrade to a fixed version: 1.21.2.
Workaround: Block external access to /api/tus/hooks and /tus/ at the reverse proxy for untrusted networks.
Check your systems with an agent
Paste this into a coding or ops agent. It checks your systems read-only and reports a table per asset.
Check whether my systems are affected by CVE-2026-67449 (Portabase: Unauthenticated path traversal in TUS webhook overwrites AES-256-GCM master key), using the cve.now data below.
Rules: work read-only. Do not run exploit code, proof-of-concept scripts or scanners that send attack payloads, and do not change any configuration, package, image or deployment. Report findings only.
What cve.now has for CVE-2026-67449 (entry last updated 2026-11-11):
Affected:
- Portabase portabase: fixed in 1.21.2
Fixed versions: 1.21.2.
Conditions (all must be true for the bug to be hit):
- Affected: Portabase up to and including 1.21.1 (self-hosted Community Edition). (source: https://github.com/Portabase/portabase/security/advisories/GHSA-7697-vf3j-253j)
- Instance reachable by an untrusted network. (source: https://github.com/Portabase/portabase/security/advisories/GHSA-7697-vf3j-253j)
Setup: unknown whether the bug needs a non-default feature or setting. Check the advisory.
Attacker needs: network access, no login, no user action.
Workaround: Block external access to /api/tus/hooks and /tus/ at the reverse proxy for untrusted networks. (source: https://github.com/Portabase/portabase/security/advisories/GHSA-7697-vf3j-253j)
CISA KEV: CVE-2026-67449 is not listed as of cve.now's last read.
This KEV status is for CVE-2026-67449 only. If you also check another CVE, look up its own KEV status; never assume it from this one.
How to check:
- Installed software: check what is actually running, not what a repo declares. Read the version from each host, container image and Kubernetes node (the binary's version output, the OS package database, image layers), and check whether the conditions above hold there. Distribution packages may carry a backported fix under an older version number; confirm against the distribution's own advisory.
Verify against the linked advisories before concluding, and cite the date you read each one:
- https://github.com/Portabase/portabase/security/advisories/GHSA-7697-vf3j-253j
- https://github.com/Portabase/portabase/pull/355
- https://github.com/Portabase/portabase/commit/8dcb406790728fbdbf758ec88bf000af79498fc1
- https://github.com/Portabase/portabase/releases/tag/1.21.2
Do not conclude an asset is unaffected unless you checked it and the evidence covers both its version and the conditions above. If you could not check something, mark it unknown and say what is missing.
Report a table with one row per asset and these columns: Asset | Version or build | Status (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | Compensating controls | Exposure (internet-facing, internal, none) | Evidence | Next action.
Entry: https://cve.now/CVE-2026-67449
For follow-up questions, use the cve.now MCP server at https://mcp.cve.now/mcp (no authentication), for example execute with name cve.get and arguments {"id": "CVE-2026-67449"}.Timeline
- CVE published
- First seen by cve.now
- Posted on X by cve.now
Affected versions
- Portabase portabase
fixed in 1.21.2
Evidence 6
Vendor advisory · 1
Establishes: Affected and fixed versions.
- Advisory
CVE record · 2
Establishes: The identifier and description.
- Record
- Record
Other links · 3
- Repository
- Repository
- Repository
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about CVE-2026-67449
Is CVE-2026-67449 being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
What does this mean?
A flaw in the TUS webhook lets an unauthenticated attacker overwrite arbitrary files under Portabase's private data directory. This includes the AES-256-GCM master key, which can make encrypted backups unreadable.Source: github.com
Which versions are affected by CVE-2026-67449?
portabase: before 1.21.2.Source: cve.now feed data
Am I affected, and how do I check?
Portabase up to and including 1.21.1 is affected, but only self-hosted Community Edition instances reachable by an untrusted network. Check the installed Portabase version and whether the instance is reachable from untrusted networks.Source: github.com
How do I fix CVE-2026-67449?
Upgrade to Portabase 1.21.2 or later. If upgrading is not yet possible, block external access to /api/tus/hooks and /tus/ at the reverse proxy for untrusted networks.Source: github.com