CVE-2026-78367
Description
A vulnerability was found in RPM's rpmbuild tarball processing. When processing a crafted source archive, the getTarSpec() function in tools/rpmbuild.cc passes an attacker-controlled tar archive member name to rpmExpand() as part of a %{basename:...} macro expression. A specially crafted .spec member name can therefore inject RPM macros, including Lua expressions, resulting in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the user running rpmbuild. This can be exploited when a victim or automated build system processes an attacker-controlled source tarball using rpmbuild tarball mode (such as -ts, -ta, or -tb).
Statement
This issue is considered Moderate severity because, although successful exploitation can result in arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the rpmbuild process, exploitation requires an attacker to supply a specially crafted source tarball and have it processed by rpmbuild in tarball mode. The vulnerable code is not exposed as a network service and cannot be directly triggered remotely without this archive-processing workflow.
Mitigation
Do not process untrusted tarballs with rpmbuild -ta/-tb/-ts. Extract and inspect archives first (reject member names containing }, %, or {), or build from a reviewed .spec outside tarball mode. Prefer isolated builders (mock/container) for any untrusted packaging related work.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 7 | N/A | 7 |
| Attack Vector | Local | N/A | Local |
| Attack Complexity | High | N/A | High |
| Privileges Required | None | N/A | None |
| User Interaction | Required | N/A | Required |
| Scope | Unchanged | N/A | Unchanged |
| Confidentiality | High | N/A | High |
| Integrity Impact | High | N/A | High |
| Availability Impact | High | N/A | High |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
cve.org: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Access Control
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
In some cases, injectable code controls authentication; this may lead to a remote vulnerability.
Access Control
Technical Impact: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Injected code can access resources that the attacker is directly prevented from accessing.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability
Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
When a product allows a user's input to contain code syntax, it might be possible for an attacker to craft the code in such a way that it will alter the intended control flow of the product. As a result, code injection can often result in the execution of arbitrary code. Code injection attacks can also lead to loss of data integrity in nearly all cases, since the control-plane data injected is always incidental to data recall or writing.
Non-Repudiation
Technical Impact: Hide Activities
Often the actions performed by injected control code are unlogged.
Acknowledgements
This issue was discovered by Sandipan Roy (Red Hat).
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
