Case Study: Path Traversal (Zip Slip) in Plexus Archiver – CVE-2018-1002200

[Mrunal1Patil]

“Zip Slip Vulnerability in File Extraction”.

The case study includes:

• Overview of Path Traversal (CWE-22)
• Description of CVE-2018-1002200 in Plexus Archiver
• Vulnerable source code from Plexus Archiver 3.5
• Example of how a fake ZIP file can be used to exploit the bug.
• Fixed code from Plexus Archiver 3.6.0 (canonical path validation)
• Prevention guidelines and secure coding practices
• Full references and contributions section

This submission is part of a secure coding course assignment.

[continue]

Keep this PR in a mergeable state →

Learn more

---

All Green is an AI agent that automatically:

✅ Addresses code review comments

✅ Fixes failing CI checks

✅ Resolves merge conflicts

[stevechristeycoley]

Automated Analysis Results of This Use Case

Thank you for providing your use case! Apologies for the form letter, but it's a pleasure to see y'all :)

With technical knowledge work such as this project, it is important to structure information as well as possible, so that it can be processed automatically.

We also want to validate our inputs ;-)

So, this report contains the results of an automated analysis of the provided use case, looking for consistency with the documented format as covered in Section 3 "Case Study Structure" of the Style Guide.

Disclaimers:

• David Wheeler may provide guidance on how to handle these reports. We're grateful that you've put in this work already, and we don't want to burden you unnecessarily 'cuz you're probably busy :)
• Our style guide was not always 100% clear (as often happens early in technical knowledge work), so this analysis attempts to automatically resolve potential inconsistencies.
• This report is provided as a convenience. There may be some errors or omissions in this report.
• We will conduct deeper analysis at a later time.

Items are prioritized from Informative, Low, Medium, to High in terms of current importance to the project.

Analyzing Presence of Markdown

Markdown detected in the document.

Parser Issues

The following issues were encountered by the parser used to analyze this file. This might explain potential errors and false positives in the subsequent analysis.

• [Info] Inferring that line 1 contains the title

Section Analysis

• [Info] 0 major section-name issues detected.
• [Med] Section 'Introduction' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Software' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Weakness' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Vulnerability' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Exploit' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Fix' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Prevention' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Conclusion' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'References' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2
• [Med] Section 'Contributions' is expected to have 3 hash marks, but it has 2

Analyzing Title Section

Note: the analysis may be incorrect depending on how
you provided the title. This an issue with the analyzer.

Inferred/Extracted Title begins with text: 'Title : Path Traversal (Zip Slip) in Plexus Archiv...'

• [Low] Title does not contain only capital letters
• [Med] Title contains more than 8 words (longer than the recommended 4 to 6)

Analyzing Introduction Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Software Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Weakness Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Vulnerability Section

No issues found.

Analyzing Fix Section

No issues found.

Analyzing References Section

No issues found.