Skip to main content

microtar CVE-2026-71267

| EUVDEUVD-2026-53352 CRITICAL
Stack-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-121)
2026-08-05 TuranSec GHSA-3h9h-4m9g-9m4r
9.8
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: TuranSec
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Supply overlong archive filename
  2. Delivery
    Application passes name to mtar_write_*_header
  3. Exploit
    strcpy overruns 100-byte stack buffer
  4. Execution
    Corrupt saved stack frame
  5. Impact
    Hijack control flow or crash

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
ASVS 5.0
V15 - Secure Coding and Architecture Stack buffer bounds checking
MITRE ATT&CK

1 technique across 1 tactic: Execution

The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up.

Exploitation Conditions

Exploitation requires that the embedding application call mtar_write_file_header() or mtar_write_dir_header() with an entry name whose length is 100 bytes or greater and that this name be influenced by an attacker (e.g. user-uploaded or attacker-named files being archived). Limiting factors: the flaw is not directly reachable unless the host application passes long, externally-controlled filenames into these specific write functions, so a purely local/config-only tool with trusted inputs is not exposed; reliable code execution (versus a crash) is further constrained by compiler stack protections, ASLR, and platform ABI. The CVSS AV:N assumes the vulnerable call is reachable over a network path, which is application-specific and not guaranteed by the library itself - verify the actual call site before assuming remote reach.

Impact

The supplied CVSS 3.1 vector (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N, C:H/I:H/A:H, score 9.8) treats this as remote unauthenticated critical RCE, but that rating assumes a specific deployment where attacker-controlled filenames reach the vulnerable function over the network - microtar is a library, not a network service, so the true attack vector is entirely dependent on the embedding application. This is a case where CVSS overstates intrinsic risk: reachability, exploitability past stack canaries/ASLR/NX, and whether long names are even network-exposed all vary by integrator. No EPSS score, KEV listing, SSVC decision, or POC is present in the provided data, so there is no signal of active or automatable exploitation. Realistic priority is moderate: the bug is genuine and easy to trigger for a crash/DoS, but weaponized remote code execution requires a vulnerable downstream application and is not demonstrated. Treat the 9.8 as an upper bound pending confirmation of a real reachable, network-facing call site.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An application uses microtar to build a tar archive from filenames supplied by an external actor - for example a web service that lets users name files that are later archived. The attacker submits a filename of 100+ bytes, which flows into mtar_write_file_header() and overflows the 100-byte stack buffer, corrupting adjacent stack memory to cause a crash or, with a crafted payload defeating stack protections, hijack control flow. No public POC is available, so any working exploit would have to be developed against the specific target application.

Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Why: CRITICAL severity.
No patch listed yet 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Aug 05, 2026

Stack buffer overflow in rxi's microtar C library allows memory corruption when an application archives files with attacker-influenced names longer than 99 characters. The mtar_write_file_header() and mtar_write_dir_header() functions use an unbounded strcpy() into a fixed 100-byte stack buffer, so any calling program that feeds externally-controlled filenames into these APIs is exposed to potential code execution or crash. No public exploit identified at time of analysis, and the library is not listed in CISA KEV, but the missing length check is trivially reachable in code that tars user-supplied paths.

RemediationAI

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis; the only references are the upstream repository (https://github.com/rxi/microtar) and source file, with no tagged fixed release. As an immediate code-level fix, integrators should patch mtar_write_file_header() and mtar_write_dir_header() to reject or truncate names where strlen(name) >= 100 (for example replace strcpy with a bounded copy such as snprintf(h.name, sizeof(h.name), "%s", name) or an explicit length guard that returns an error like MTAR_EWRITEFAIL). Until an upstream fix is available, callers should validate and cap filename length to 99 bytes before passing values into these functions, and sanitize any user- or network-sourced paths at the application boundary; the trade-off is that legitimately long names will be rejected or truncated, so archive fidelity for such entries is lost. Compiling the embedding application with stack canaries (-fstack-protector-strong), FORTIFY_SOURCE, ASLR, and non-executable stacks reduces the chance a triggered overflow becomes code execution rather than a crash.

Affected VersionsENISA

microtar 0 ≤*

Affects your stack

Find out whether the stacks and servers you run are on an affected version.

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

microtar is a minimal single-file tar archive library written in C (src/microtar.c) by developer rxi, commonly embedded in other projects for reading and writing tar streams. The mtar_header_t structure defines a fixed 100-byte name field mirroring the POSIX/ustar tar header name field. The vulnerable code path performs strcpy(h.name, name) with no prior strlen() bounds check, so a name of 100 or more bytes overruns the stack-allocated header structure. This is a textbook CWE-121 (Stack-based Buffer Overflow) caused by use of an unbounded string copy on a caller-supplied input, a root-cause class that classic tar tooling avoids by truncating or splitting long names into the prefix field.

Know when Microtar gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (TuranSec) PRIMARY 9.8 CRITICAL
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
vuln.today AI 8.1 HIGH

Kept network vector since attacker-controlled names may arrive remotely, but raised to AC:H because exploitation depends on a reachable call site and defeating stack protections; full C/I/A impact reflects potential code execution.

3.1 AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
4.0 AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
SUSE CRITICAL
Red Hat 8.8 HIGH

Primary rating from Vendor (TuranSec).

CVSS VectorVendor: TuranSec

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

DescriptionCVE.org

microtar's mtar_write_file_header() and mtar_write_dir_header() functions (src/microtar.c) copy a caller-supplied entry name into the 100-byte name field of a stack-allocated mtar_header_t via strcpy(h.name, name), with no check that strlen(name) is less than 100 before the copy. Any application that calls these functions with an externally-influenced filename longer than 99 characters (e.g. when archiving user-supplied or attacker-controlled filenames) triggers a stack buffer overflow.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

A critical stack buffer overflow in rxi's microtar C library (CVSS 9.8) enables arbitrary code execution when processing tar archives with malicious filenames longer than 99 characters. Any application embedding this library is vulnerable if it processes externally-supplied or untrusted tar files, directly exposing dependent systems and end users to potential compromise.

Business Impact: Severe
Compensating Controls

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis. Interim mitigations: (1) Pre-archive filename validation-reject any filename longer than 99 characters before processing; (2) Source restriction-process only digitally signed or internally-generated tar archives; (3) Privilege isolation-execute tar operations with minimal system privileges in a containerized or OS-level sandbox; (4) Network controls-if tar uploads occur via web service, deploy WAF rules to block suspicious or oversized archives.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 73% exploitable
Prevalence
Low
small single-developer C tar library, niche embedded use
Data Quality
7 sources
Confidence: High
EUVD NVD CVE.org EPSS Vulnrichment Vendor GitHub

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity CRITICAL
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available No
Active threat No
Deciding rule
CRITICAL severity
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision
Out-of-Cycle
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
Yes
Human Impact
Very High
Technical Impact
Total

Priority Score

49
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +49
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

A buffer overflow occurs when a program writes more data to a memory buffer than it was allocated to hold, causing the excess data to spill into adjacent memory regions.

A stack-based buffer overflow occurs when a program writes more data to a buffer located on the stack than it was allocated to hold.

Vendor StatusVendor

SUSE

Severity: Critical

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy