CVE-2026-71492
MediumCVSS 6.0Summary
In Banks before version 2.4.5, DirectoryPromptRegistry.set() in src/banks/registries/directory.py interpolates attacker-controlled Prompt.name and Prompt.version values into a Path without canonicalization or containment validation. Relative traversal such as ../victim/foo and an absolute Prompt.name can escape or discard the configured registry root, while overwrite=True permits replacement of existing target files. The poisoned name is persisted in index.json and reconstructed by _load(), allowing the out-of-root path to survive later registry loads. An application that forwards request data into these fields can therefore write Prompt.raw bytes to attacker-chosen paths writable by the application process. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.5.
Risk Assessment
The risk includes writing files outside the intended directory, potentially leading to overwriting critical files, privilege escalation, or execution of malicious code. The attack requires the ability to pass data to Prompt.name and Prompt.version fields, which may be possible remotely.
Recommendation
It is recommended to immediately upgrade to version 2.4.5 or later. Also, verify that the application does not pass unsanitized data to these fields, and consider additional path validation.
Other vulnerabilities in Banks
See all- CVE-2026-61536High
Banks prior to version 2.4.3 contains a remote code execution vulnerability in {% completion %} blocks. An attacker can supply a malicious Tool JSON object with an import_path field that is resolved via importlib.import_module() and getattr() without any allowlist. When the LLM invokes a tool with a matching name, arbitrary Python code such as os.system or subprocess.getoutput can be executed.
- CVE-2026-62663High
Banks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a simple template language. In versions prior to 2.4.4, all four media filters (image, audio, video, document) in banks accept untrusted user input as file paths via Path(value) and pass them directly to open(file_path, "rb") without any path sanitization, canonicalization, or directory restriction. An attacker who controls template variables passed to a banks Prompt can use path traversal (../) to read arbitrary files accessible to the Python process—including .env files, SSH keys, cloud credentials, source code, /etc/passwd, and /etc/shadow—with the content returned base64-encoded in the rendered prompt output, making exfiltration trivial.
- CVE-2026-44209High
Banks before version 2.4.2 uses unsandboxed jinja2.Environment() to render prompt templates, allowing Server-Side Template Injection (SSTI) leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE) on the host.
Original NVD description (English source)
Banks generates meaningful LLM prompts using a simple template language. Prior to version 2.4.5, DirectoryPromptRegistry.set() in src/banks/registries/directory.py interpolates attacker-controlled Prompt.name and Prompt.version values into a Path without canonicalization or containment validation. Relative traversal such as ../victim/foo and an absolute Prompt.name can escape or discard the configured registry root, while overwrite=True permits replacement of existing target files. The poisoned name is persisted in index.json and reconstructed by _load(), allowing the out-of-root path to survive later registry loads. An application that forwards request data into these fields can therefore write Prompt.raw bytes to attacker-chosen paths writable by the application process. This issue is fixed in version 2.4.5.