CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2026-48103

Out-of-bounds Read

Published: Jun 05, 2026 | Modified: Jun 08, 2026
CVSS 3.x
7.1
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

7-Zip is a file archiver with a high compression ratio. Versions 9.34 through 26.00 contain an off-by-one heap out-of-bounds read in the WIM (Windows Imaging) archive handlers security descriptor lookup. In CHandler::GetSecurity (CPP/7zip/Archive/Wim/WimHandler.cpp), the per-image SecurOffsets table holds numEntries + 1 cumulative offsets, but the check securityId >= SecurOffsets.Size() admits securityId == numEntries, and the function then reads SecurOffsets[securityId + 1], fetching one UInt32 past the end of the heap-allocated CRecordVector (which performs no bounds checking on operator[]). The securityId is attacker-controlled at offset +0xC of any directory entry in WIM metadata, and the handler is registered for .wim, .swm, .esd, and .ppkg and enabled by default in stock 7z.dll; the OOB triggers zero-click in the GUI because 7zFM.exes ListView calls GetRawProp(kpidNtSecure) for every item during listing (ASan-confirmed), and is also reachable via CLI listing with 7zz l -slt. Impact is limited to denial of service under hardened allocators and minor information disclosure, since the OOB value is only consumed arithmetically as a length and is not surfaced to the attacker; there is no write primitive.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
7-zip7-zip9.34 (including)26.01 (excluding)
7zipUbuntuupstream*
P7zipUbuntuupstream*

Potential Mitigations

  • Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
  • When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
  • Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

References