7-Zip is a file archiver with a high compression ratio. Versions 9.21 through 26.00 contain an off-by-one out-of-bounds read vulnerability in the ParseDepedencyExpression function of the UEFI firmware image parser(CPP/7zip/Archive/UefiHandler.cpp). The function validates an attacker-controlled opcode byte using > instead of >= against the element count of the 10-entry kExpressionCommands static array, allowing an opcode value of 10 to read one pointer slot (8 bytes on x64) past the end of the array in .rodata. The out-of-bounds value is then dereferenced as a const char * and passed through strlen and memcpy into the archives Characts property, which may cause either a denial of service (access violation when the adjacent bytes do not form a valid readable pointer) or a minor information disclosure of an adjacent .rdata string literal into archive metadata. The vulnerability is reached automatically during IInArchive::Open() via the call path OpenFv/OpenCapsule → ParseVolume → ParseSections when processing a SECTION_DXE_DEPEX (0x13) or SECTION_PEI_DEPEX (0x1B) section whose first body byte is 0x0A, and the UEFI handler is enabled by default in stock 7z.dll with signature-based detection for both UEFIc and UEFIf formats. The outcome (crash vs. silent leak) is deterministic per build but linker-layout dependent, with no write primitive and no disclosure of heap data, secrets, or ASLR base addresses. Version 26.01 fixes the issue.
Weakness
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Affected Software
| Name | Vendor | Start Version | End Version |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7-zip | 7-zip | 9.21 (including) | 26.01 (excluding) |
| 7zip | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
| P7zip | Ubuntu | upstream | * |
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.