rustsec-2026-0068
Vulnerability from osv_rustsec
Published
2026-03-19 12:00
Modified
2026-03-23 09:31
Summary
tar-rs incorrectly ignores PAX size headers if header size is nonzero
Details

Versions 0.4.44 and below of tar-rs have conditional logic that skips the PAX size header in cases where the base header size is nonzero.

As part of CVE-2025-62518, the astral-tokio-tar project was changed to correctly honor PAX size headers in the case where it was different from the base header. This is almost the inverse of the astral-tokio-tar issue.

Any discrepancy in how tar parsers honor file size can be used to create archives that appear differently when unpacked by different archivers. In this case, the tar-rs (Rust tar) crate is an outlier in checking for the header size — other tar parsers (including e.g. Go archive/tar) unconditionally use the PAX size override. This can affect anything that uses the tar crate to parse archives and expects to have a consistent view with other parsers.

This issue has been fixed in version 0.4.45.


{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "categories": [],
        "cvss": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
        "informational": null
      },
      "ecosystem_specific": {
        "affected_functions": null,
        "affects": {
          "arch": [],
          "functions": [],
          "os": []
        }
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "crates.io",
        "name": "tar",
        "purl": "pkg:cargo/tar"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.0.0-0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.4.45"
            }
          ],
          "type": "SEMVER"
        }
      ],
      "versions": []
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-33055",
    "GHSA-gchp-q4r4-x4ff"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "license": "CC0-1.0"
  },
  "details": "Versions 0.4.44 and below of tar-rs have conditional logic that skips the PAX\nsize header in cases where the base header size is nonzero.\n\nAs part of [CVE-2025-62518][astral-cve], the [astral-tokio-tar]\nproject was changed to correctly honor PAX size headers in the case where it\nwas different from the base header. This is almost the inverse of the\nastral-tokio-tar issue.\n\nAny discrepancy in how tar parsers honor file size can be used to create\narchives that appear differently when unpacked by different archivers. In this\ncase, the tar-rs (Rust tar) crate is an outlier in checking for the header size\n\u2014 other tar parsers (including e.g. Go [`archive/tar`][go-tar]) unconditionally\nuse the PAX size override. This can affect anything that uses the tar crate to\nparse archives and expects to have a consistent view with other parsers.\n\nThis issue has been fixed in version 0.4.45.\n\n[astral-cve]: https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-62518\n[astral-tokio-tar]: https://github.com/astral-sh/tokio-tar\n[go-tar]: https://pkg.go.dev/archive/tar",
  "id": "RUSTSEC-2026-0068",
  "modified": "2026-03-23T09:31:59Z",
  "published": "2026-03-19T12:00:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://crates.io/crates/tar"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0068.html"
    }
  ],
  "related": [],
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "tar-rs incorrectly ignores PAX size headers if header size is nonzero"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…